YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

36(1)(va), even if paid before the return-filing due date. 5 ITA 1093/Mum/2025 ITA 992/Mum/2025 Yes Bank Ltd However, it was contended that the said ruling was not applicable at the time the disallowance was made under Section 143(1), and that the CPC, Bengaluru, was bound by the binding decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

36(1) (va) in respect of LWF amounting\nto Rs. 31,812/- be deleted and the AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 16, 16,236/-\nu/s. 43B of the Act.\n5. without prejudice to the above, such adjustment / disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

36(1) (va) in respect of LWF amounting\nto Rs. 31,812/- be deleted and the AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 16, 16,236/-\nu/s. 43B of the Act.\n5. without prejudice to the above, such adjustment / disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(1) , MUMBAI, MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings were initiated based on the disallowance of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) for payments towards alternate accommodation. However, the CIT(A) deleted this primary addition. The AO also made a disallowance for delayed remittance of PF/ESI under section 36(1)(va

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

reassessment under section 147 of the Act with regard to the surviving disallowance under 36(1)(va) towards delayed remittance

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the disallowance made under section\n36(1)(va) of the Act for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 also.\n15. In result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 to AY 2020...

reassessment under section 147 of the Act with\nregard to the surviving disallowance under 36(1)(va) towards delayed remittance

ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-5(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Itd Cementation India Ltd. Central Circle 5(1) 9Th Floor, Prima Bay, Room No.1928, 19 Th Floor, Tower-B, Gate No.5, Air India Building, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 072 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1426A Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2024

36(I)(va) of the Act of ₹1,97,740/-, which was rectified by the learned Assessing Officer vide order dated 3rd June, 2021, was also disallowed relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) [12-10-2022]. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

ZENITH DYEINTERMEDIATES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-3,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

36(1)(va)\" that the assessee\nhas paid Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund. As per provision of\nIncome Tax Act, any sum received by the assessee from its employees as contribution\nto any such employees, is income in the hands of the assessee as per section 2(24)(x)\nof the I.T. Act and the same is allowable

THE DY CIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOUROUS LTD., MUMBAI

36(1) (va) has not been considered for disallowance under section\n43B.\n11.2. In Note No. 4 of the notes to computation of total income filed with\nthe original return, it was submitted that clause (b) of section 43B is not\nattracted to employer's contribution to ESIC relying on the decision of the\nIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

36(1) (va) has not been considered for disallowance under section\n43B.\n11.2. In Note No. 4 of the notes to computation of total income filed with\nthe original return, it was submitted that clause (b) of section 43B is not\nattracted to employer's contribution to ESIC relying on the decision of the\nIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN. CIR. - 38, MUMBAI

36(1) (va) has not been considered for disallowance under section\n43B.\n11.2. In Note No. 4 of the notes to computation of total income filed with\nthe original return, it was submitted that clause (b) of section 43B is not\nattracted to employer's contribution to ESIC relying on the decision of the\nIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SODEXO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

reassessment proceedings mainly on the ground that there was a “full and true disclosure” on the part of the assessee and the AO has reopened the assessment merely on the basis of change of opinion. But the facts of the present case, we find that in case of the slump sale u/s 50B(3) of the Act, it is prescribed

I G. INTERNATIONAL P LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

section 234B of Rs.3,16,033/-. The assessee craves to leave to add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. The facts in brief is that assesse company is engaged in the business of trading of fresh fruits. The return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 was filed on 31.10.2015 declaring loss of Rs.6

I G INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

section 234B of Rs.3,16,033/-. The assessee craves to leave to add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. The facts in brief is that assesse company is engaged in the business of trading of fresh fruits. The return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 was filed on 31.10.2015 declaring loss of Rs.6