NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed

234D 2.4 Similarly, the issues of revenue‟s appeal may be tabulated as under: - G.No. Grounds / Issues 1. Depreciation on block of assets 2. Disallowance against advertisement films 3. Freight Component in closing stock 4. Incremental liability for VRS 5. Corporate entrance fee 6. Adjustment of book profit u/s 115JB 7 & 8 Adjustment of 80HHC deduction u/s. 115JB 9. General

NATHAN ANIL RAO, MUMBAI vs. THE ITO -CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

68,972; Erroneous levy of interes Erroneous levy of interest under section 234D of the Act 9. erred in levying

MATHURA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 instead of deleting the whole amount of Rs.38.70 Crores as he considered the unsigned loose sheets are dumb documents. 3. The Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s. 23413, 234C & 234D of the Income tax Act, 1961. It is prayed that the additions made may please be deleted or in the alternative

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 ITA. No. 4543/MUM/2023 (A.Y.: 2011-12) Jitendra udaylal Jain, Mumbai. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law the Ld. AO erred in rejecting the exemption of Rs. 3,72,49,578/- under section 10(38) of the Income

JINDAL DRUGS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE, 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

68 of the Act while computing income under normal provisions of the Act back to file of the Assessing Officer with directions in paragraph 6.6 above while disposing off Ground No.3. The issue raised in Ground No. 4 relating to computation of „Book Profits‟ as per Section 115JB of the Act. We note that the transactions related to deposit

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

NANDA SUMERMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (2) (4), MUMBAI

234D of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.” 4. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, an individual proprietor of a proprietorship firm operating at the relevant time

ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

234D be charged. The assessee succeeded in alternative plea. In the result, this ground in C.O. of assessee of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Now turning to additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 34. Additional Ground No.1 relates to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC for the purpose of book profit under section 115JA

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

234D be charged. The assessee succeeded in alternative plea. In the result, this ground in C.O. of assessee of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Now turning to additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 34. Additional Ground No.1 relates to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC for the purpose of book profit under section 115JA

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

234D be charged. The assessee succeeded in alternative plea. In the result, this ground in C.O. of assessee of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Now turning to additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 34. Additional Ground No.1 relates to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC for the purpose of book profit under section 115JA

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

234D be charged. The assessee succeeded in alternative plea. In the result, this ground in C.O. of assessee of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Now turning to additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 34. Additional Ground No.1 relates to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC for the purpose of book profit under section 115JA

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

234D be charged. The assessee succeeded in alternative plea. In the result, this ground in C.O. of assessee of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Now turning to additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 34. Additional Ground No.1 relates to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC for the purpose of book profit under section 115JA

HARVEST AGRICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & & Harvest Agriculture Ito Ward 2(1)(3) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 104 Natwar Chambers 94 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Nagindas Master Road Fort, Mumbai- 400023 Pan/Gir No. Aabch6761P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

68 of the Act and made additions accordingly. Consequential penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were also initiated, and interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D

HARVEST AGRICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & & Harvest Agriculture Ito Ward 2(1)(3) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 104 Natwar Chambers 94 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Nagindas Master Road Fort, Mumbai- 400023 Pan/Gir No. Aabch6761P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

68 of the Act and made additions accordingly. Consequential penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were also initiated, and interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D

HARVEST AGRICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & & Harvest Agriculture Ito Ward 2(1)(3) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 104 Natwar Chambers 94 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Nagindas Master Road Fort, Mumbai- 400023 Pan/Gir No. Aabch6761P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

68 of the Act and made additions accordingly. Consequential penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were also initiated, and interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D

INDIA MEDTRONIC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarit(Tp)A No.2160/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 India Meditronic Pvt. Ltd., Acit 10(1)(1) 1241 Solitaire Corporate Park, Mumbai Vs. Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093

234D of the Ac. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 46. erred in initiating penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act; The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SPARKLE CLEAN TECH PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is\ndismissed

Section 68 of the Act\n48,11,820\nTotal Income\n10,17,39,820/-\n6 Accordingly, assessed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Allow\ncredit for prepaid taxes, if any, after due verification. The\ncomputation of interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C & 234D

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazm/S. Orient Overseas Dcit (International Container Line Ltd. Taxation) - 4(2) C/O Oocl (India) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 11, Scindia Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor Vs. House, Ground Floor Saki Vihar Road, Powai Ballard Estate Opp. Santogen Silk Mills Mumbai 400038 Mumbai 400072 Pan - Aaaco5679F Appellant Respondent

68,616/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the draft assessment order dated 28.02.2014 was served on the assessee. The assessee-company filed its objections thereto before the DRP-II, Mumbai. The DRP-II issued its 2 M/s. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. directions on the assessee’s objection under section 144C(5) of the Act vide

FRANKIN TEMPLETON ASSET MANAGEMENT (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Franklin Templeton Asset Acit 34, Management (I) P. Ltd. R.No.104, Aayakar बनाम/ Indiabulls Finance Centre, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Tower-2, 12Th & 13Th Floor, Mumbai-20 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai -400 013 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaact1609B Assessee By Shri F.V. Irani (Ar) Revenue By Shri G.M. Doss (Cit-Dr)

234D of the Act to Rs.7,00,516, as against Rs. 85,38,2 13 determined by him. 7. Consequential relief The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to grant all consequential reliefs.” 2. During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri F.V. Irani, Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of the Assessee and by Shri G.M. Doss