SWAROOPSING BHADURSINGH RATHORE,THANE vs. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowances are clearly covered by Section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1.1 With reference to payment of employees dues to ESIC/PF dues, it is pertinent to note that the EPF & MP Act 1952 speaks of two types of contributions, namely -the Employer's share, and -the Employee's share. As a precautionary measure under the Income

M/S PAPER RECYCLE ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowances are clearly covered by Section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1.1 With reference to payment of employees dues to ESIC/PF dues, it is pertinent to note that the EPF & MP Act 1952 speaks of two types of contributions, namely -the Employer's share, and -the Employee's share. As a precautionary measure under the Income

SAVANI HERITAGE CONSERVATION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowances are clearly covered by Section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1.1 With reference to payment of employees dues to ESIC/PF dues, it is pertinent to note that the EPF & MP Act 1952 speaks of two types of contributions, namely -the Employer's share, and -the Employee's share. As a precautionary measure under the Income

DICITEX HOME FURNISHING PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 1 (3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) & Could Be Allowed As Deduction.

disallowances are clearly covered by Section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1.1 With reference to payment of employees dues to ESIC/PF dues, it is pertinent to note that the EPF & MP Act 1952 speaks of two types of contributions, namely -the Employer's share, and -the Employee's share. As a precautionary measure under the Income

MUPPIDATHY SIVAN THEVAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CPC, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowances are clearly covered by Section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1.1 With reference to payment of employees dues to ESIC/PF dues, it is pertinent to note that the EPF & MP Act 1952 speaks of two types of contributions, namely -the Employer's share, and -the Employee's share. As a precautionary measure under the Income

MUPPIDATHY SIVAN THEVAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CPC, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

disallowances are clearly covered by Section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1.1 With reference to payment of employees dues to ESIC/PF dues, it is pertinent to note that the EPF & MP Act 1952 speaks of two types of contributions, namely -the Employer's share, and -the Employee's share. As a precautionary measure under the Income

JOYO PLASTICS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Joyo Plastics, Acit Circle-24(1), 104, Jai Antariksh Co-Op Society, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Chamber, Lalbaug, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaafj 0286 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 : 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act"), the 37(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act"), the 37(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act"), the expenditure so incurred by the Appellant was not allowable. It was for expenditure so incurred

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of provision for pension. The CIT(A) upheld the decision of the AO. The assessee bank has claimed that the provision for pension made by it in its books of account is an accrued liability that should be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. The assessee bank has also

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowance offered by the assessee of Rs. 34,215/- and treated the receipt of shares of United Phosphorus Ltd (UPL) and Uniphos Enterprises Ltd (UEL), received without consideration as income of the assessee under section 28(iv) and in alternative under section 56(1

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56 SOT 214 (Mum. Trib.). 24. The ld. DR endorsed that in so far as issue no. 2 & 3 raised in the present appeal relating to disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

1,68,31,954/- during the year ended 31.03.2017 and, out of abundant caution, disallowed 30 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 50,49,586/- under section 40(a) of the Act in A.Y. 2017–18 (a copy of the statement of computation of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was placed on record). It was further submitted that

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

1,68,31,954/- during the year ended 31.03.2017 and, out of abundant caution, disallowed 30 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 50,49,586/- under section 40(a) of the Act in A.Y. 2017–18 (a copy of the statement of computation of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was placed on record). It was further submitted that

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

1,68,31,954/- during the year ended 31.03.2017 and, out of abundant caution, disallowed 30 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 50,49,586/- under section 40(a) of the Act in A.Y. 2017–18 (a copy of the statement of computation of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was placed on record). It was further submitted that