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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act being the amount of bad debts written off (other than in respect of rural advances). This issue of assessee appeal is allowed. 60. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in disallowing deduction claimed by assessee on account

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

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 67. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's grounds and upheld

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 67. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's grounds and upheld

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 67. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's grounds and upheld

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 67. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s grounds and upheld

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

1,160,35,01,455/- in the normal computation of total income and further same was also added to the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. iii. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets of ₹27,31,73,482/- was allowed instead of depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹7,74,20,633/-. iv. Disallowance of club

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

disallowed as per the provisions of Section 43 c) Provision for Wage arrears amounting to Rs 96,00,00,000/- In all the above cases, there is no Revenue loss. Any recovery made in respect of bad debts allowed ad deduction us/ 36(1)(vii), has to be offered to tax u/s 41(4) in the year of recovery

M/S. ORIENTAL TRADING CO. ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2329 & 2330/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Cit(A) - Nfac M/S Oriental Trading Co. Mumbai. 1St Floor, Elite House, Punjab बिधम/ Foundry, Near Classic Studio, Vs. Mira Road East, Mumbai-400 107 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafo7024L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 26.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2

67,386/- in AY 2018-19 and Rs. 38,11,460/- in AY 2019-20. 4. In both the assessment years, CPC has made adjustment and disallowed u/s 143(1) wherein contribution of PF and ESI has been disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and reduce the total income accordingly. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease premium paid in respect of various leasehold properties of Rs.4,08,67

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and reduce the total income accordingly. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease premium paid in respect of various leasehold properties of Rs.4,08,67

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee, inter alia, by (a) deleting the disallowance of INR.1,67

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee, inter alia, by (a) deleting the disallowance of INR.1,67

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee, inter alia, by (a) deleting the disallowance of INR.1,67

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and reduce the total income accordingly. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease premium paid in respect of various leasehold properties of Rs.4,08,67

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1% of exempt income being Rs.57,84,372 and reduce the total income accordingly. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing claim for amortization of lease premium paid in respect of various leasehold properties of Rs.4,08,67

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

67,34,086 as well as the expenditure disallowed by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceeding amounting to Rs.73,93,030 and only considering the balance establishment expenditure for proportionate disallowance under the provisions of section 14A of the Act as well as for computing the Adjusted Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 4. The CIT (A) erred