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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,53,96,666/-, disallowed employees' contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 41,05,801

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

section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,53,96,666/-, disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 41,05,801

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act by incorporating the TP Adjustments. The AO besides the TP Adjustment also made various additions/disallowances to arrive at the assessed income of the assessee under normal provisions at Rs. 412,98,31,100/-. The AO also recomputed the book profit under section 115JB

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act by incorporating the TP Adjustments. The AO besides the TP Adjustment also made various additions/disallowances to arrive at the assessed income of the assessee under normal provisions at Rs. 412,98,31,100/-. The AO also recomputed the book profit under section 115JB

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO BUILDING, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

801 to 804 Wing A, Building No.3, CGO Building, M.K. Road, BKC, G Block, Bandra (East), Vs. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACK3792N Appellant) : Respondent) : Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, AR Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR Revenue / Respondent by Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy

INDIANOIL ADANI VENTURES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "INDIAN OILTANKING LIMITED"),MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed to book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AR prayed for a similar direction for the year under consideration. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We noticed that the Co-ordinate

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

section 115 JB at Rs. 2,09,66,801//. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 28/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,54,41,530/- declaring same book profit after setting off of brought forward losses of Rs.44,18,221/-. In the revised return interest of Rs10,17,230/- was disallowed

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

801 to 804 Wing A Building No.3 Inspire BKC, G Block, BKC Bandra East Mumbai-400051 PAN NO- AAACK3792N Appellant Assessee by Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), CGO Building, M.K Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Respondent : Shri Ravikant Pathak Department by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date of pronouncement : 27/02/2026 ORDER

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance made under\nSection 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the aforesaid\npayments.\n32. Saudi Arabia\n32.1. The professional fee paid/payable to firm of individuals, being\ntax residents of Saudi Arabia, are listed at Sl. No. 8 of Table in\nparagraph 26 above.\n32.2. On perusal of Article 14 of the India–Saudi Arabia DTAA it\nbecomes

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KRYSTAL AVIATION SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund amounting to ` 55,87,269 and employees contribution to Employees State Insurance Corporation amounting to ` 60,87,532 aggregating to ` 1,16,74,801

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

disallowed 10% from the expenditure on brand enhancement on the ground that it was allocable to the overseas owner/collaborator. The AO reasoned that any enhancement in the brand presence of the assessee invariably had a fall-out vis-a-vis brand value of the overseas IPR proprietor. The AO also recorded the relevant facts that not all brands which belong

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

disallowance of 10% brand enhancement expenses made by the Assessing Officer observing that disallowance made on an entirely artificial and notional basis from the expense otherwise deductible was not justified. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: “6. Regarding Question No.2, during the course of proceedings in the relevant Assessment

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowable for non- deduction of tax at source under section 40 (a) (i) of the act. c The learned CIT – A noted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001 – 02 vide order dated 7 April 2017 and further the orders

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowable for non- deduction of tax at source under section 40 (a) (i) of the act. c The learned CIT – A noted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001 – 02 vide order dated 7 April 2017 and further the orders

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowable for non- deduction of tax at source under section 40 (a) (i) of the act. c The learned CIT – A noted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001 – 02 vide order dated 7 April 2017 and further the orders

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 37(1) of the Act - Ground No.7 (7.1 to 7.3) 33. The AO based on the information furnished by the assessee with regard to the amount reflected as outstanding from the AEs disallowed the finance cost incurred by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 31,97,466/- by adopting SBI Prime Lending Rate at 11%. The assessee raised

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

disallowance could be made. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the amount of Rs.88,290/- from the book profit.” Thus, he submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. was duly considered by Tribunal before taking contrary view in the matter. But Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not accept

DCIT 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATLANTA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

section 14A r/w rule 8D should not be made. In response, the assessee submitted that since the investments made were out of its own earning and that too were made in partnership firm and with associates and joint venture only for business purpose, no disallowance should be made. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find merit in the submissions