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

68,31,954/- during\nthe year ended 31.03.2017 and, out of abundant caution,\ndisallowed 30 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 50,49,586/-\nunder section 40(a) of the Act in A.Y. 2017–18 (a copy of the\nstatement of computation of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was placed\non record). It was further submitted that

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

68,31,954/- during\nthe year ended 31.03.2017 and, out of abundant caution,\ndisallowed 30 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 50,49,586/-\nunder section 40(a) of the Act in A.Y. 2017–18 (a copy of the\nstatement of computation of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was placed\non record). It was further submitted that

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 143(1), declined to adjudicate the issue on merits, and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 68

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

143(1) lies with JCIT(A). Hence combining this appeals is not possible. is not possible. 5.2 Ground 1 is against CPC restricting the claim under 5.2 Ground 1 is against CPC restricting the claim under 5.2 Ground 1 is against CPC restricting the claim under Section 80JJAA of the Act amounting to IN Section 80JJAA

DUCK CREEK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 26 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

1) of the Act under section 43B of the Act amounting to INR 68,05,543 without even any mentioning the clause of section 143

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

1) and section 143(3) of the Act. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that other points are available to be raised. Since no other point was urged before the High Court, we find no reason to examine if any other point was available. The appeal is allowed without any orders as to costs.” 2.5. In the light

OASIS LANDMARKS LLP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU

68,010/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and Intimation Order, dated 21/10/2019, was issued

THE PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (i) any arithmetical error in the return

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Section 143(1)(a)." 6.1 In this case, no scrutiny assessment was framed and the return of income was routinely processed u/s.143(l) of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of Hon'bIe Delhi High Court cited above, ground no.1 of appeal is hereby dismissed

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Section 143(1)(a)." 6.1 In this case, no scrutiny assessment was framed and the return of income was routinely processed u/s.143(l) of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of Hon'bIe Delhi High Court cited above, ground no.1 of appeal is hereby dismissed

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Section 143(1)(a)." 6.1 In this case, no scrutiny assessment was framed and the return of income was routinely processed u/s.143(l) of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of Hon'bIe Delhi High Court cited above, ground no.1 of appeal is hereby dismissed

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)(viia) to be reduced ought to be Rs. 1313,68,58,216 as per assessment order dated February 21, 2018 passed under section 143

THE ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

1) 2 Nitan Chhatwal of the Act on 29-09-2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,57,59,670/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.2015 accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands of the assessee under section

ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

1) 2 Nitan Chhatwal of the Act on 29-09-2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,57,59,670/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.2015 accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. The revenue carried out search and seizure operations in the hands of the assessee under section

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

68 2. Disallowance of finance cost under section 37(1) Rs. 31,97,466/- 3. Disallowance of installation support service charges Rs. 1,43,72,205/- and warranty services 4. Addition towards recovery of warranty support Rs. 12,81,24,990/- services charges from AE 5. Disallowance of warranty support charges under Rs. 3,22,33,056/-. section

ANIL MAHAVIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

68 and section 14A of the Act based on the accounted transactions. The instant case for the AY 2002-03 deals with the case of disturbing the „completed assessment‟. Earlier the assessment was completed u/s 143(1

ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. ANIL M. GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

68 and section 14A of the Act based on the accounted transactions. The instant case for the AY 2002-03 deals with the case of disturbing the „completed assessment‟. Earlier the assessment was completed u/s 143(1

BALBIR ISPAT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

143(1) of the Act on the basis of which reopening is initiated under section 148 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to para 9 and 10 as under: - “9. In this case, the reasons provided under Section 148 are that in “absence of the source of the addition with documentary evidence on records

IMK HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "147", "148", "143(1)", "143(3)", "68", "250" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were