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

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

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 NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

section 43B.\nConsidering that the facts for the year under consideration being similar,\nwe direct the AO to delete the disallowance made, by respectfully following the\nabove decision of the coordinate bench.\nTransfer Pricing Adjustment – Ground No.7\n26. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made a TP Adjustment of Rs.\n5,26,17,801

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

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

section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure\namounting to Rs. 2,53,96,666/-, disallowed employees'\ncontribution 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

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

TRENT LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

801,489\n18\nProportionate Amount Disallowed u/s 14A\n904,943\n19\nDividend, Interest etc Claimed Exempt (11/17*10)\n20\nProportionate Amount Disallowed u/s 14A Long Term Capital Gain Claimed\nExempt (14/17*10)\nTotal Amount Disallowed u/s 14A\n904,943\nDetails of Interest incurred in relation to exempt income disallowed u/s 14A\n21 Direct Expenses (commission) disallowed u/s14A I.e. pertaining

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

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

section 43B.\nConsidering that the facts for the year under consideration being similar,\nwe direct the AO to delete the disallowance made, by respectfully following the\nabove decision of the coordinate bench.\nTransfer Pricing Adjustment – Ground No.7\n33\nITA No. 5848 & 5935/Mum/2017\nAditya Birla Nuvo Limited\n26. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made a TP Adjustment

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

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

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

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