DCIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

36 filed by the assessee on 21/06/2021 are reproduced as under: 9. The issue of notice u/s. 148 invalid for various reasons. 10. The appellant reserves the right to add amend or alter any or all grounds of appeal Section 264A. 11. The Assessing Officer has erred in adding Rs.26,35,198/- as interest income. 12. The Assessment Order

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

36 filed by the assessee on 21/06/2021 are reproduced as under: 9. The issue of notice u/s. 148 invalid for various reasons. 10. The appellant reserves the right to add amend or alter any or all grounds of appeal Section 264A. 11. The Assessing Officer has erred in adding Rs.26,35,198/- as interest income. 12. The Assessment Order

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

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

reassessment proceedings was not properly scrutinized by the AO. Further, the CIT (A) and Tribunal decided the case without examining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought to have made further enquiry into the transaction entered into by the assessee if deemed

M/S. ORICON ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CC-3(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Oricon Enterprises Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Cc-3(3),Mumbai Vs. 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400 020

36(1)(va) of Rs.2,84,472/- by the CIT(A). On the other hand, the revenue is aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), for the reason, viz. (i). that he had erred in law and the facts of the case in directing that the disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) be restricted qua the fresh

DCIT-CC.3(3), CENTRAL RANGE-3 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD. , MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Oricon Enterprises Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Cc-3(3),Mumbai Vs. 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400 020

36(1)(va) of Rs.2,84,472/- by the CIT(A). On the other hand, the revenue is aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), for the reason, viz. (i). that he had erred in law and the facts of the case in directing that the disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) be restricted qua the fresh

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

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

va). This has been dealt in para 15 of the assessment order. In the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that in the return of income, the assessee had disclosed long term capital gains of Rs.17,77,77,777/from the shares of Viraj Profiles against which the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.54F for a sum of Rs.11

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