NEETA TOURS AND TRAVELS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalneeta Tours & Travels, D-1, Hari Bhakti Compound, Retibunder, Opp. Dowellss Co., Ghodbunder Road, Kashimira, Thane-401104. Pan: Aaefn3413G ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Room No.27, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. 162, Midc, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Hiten P. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 30.05.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

36(1) (va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts - the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since

BABA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ,DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2970/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Commissioner Of Baba Hotels Pvt. Ltd Income Tax (Appeals) Mumbai बिधम/ Delhi. A-101, Bhaveshwar Arcade, Vs. National Faceless Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar(W), Appeal Centre, New Mumbai 400086 Delhi स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccb9563C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Ms. Anita Thakur अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Minal Kamble Sr.Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 03.10.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Ay 2018-19 In Relation To The Adjustment In The Intimation U/S 143(1).

68,798/- has been made u/s 36(1)(va) in the rectification order u/s 154. The details of payments made have been given at page 6 & 7 of the appellate order. The Ld. CIT (A) after referring to the various decisions cited by the Assessee has decided this issue against the Assessee. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has also dismissed

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68 to 72 of\nthe case law compilation) and CIT vs. HDFC

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

68,05,543 without even any mentioning the clause of section 143(1) wherein the disallowance is alleged to fall while the Appellant contends that the disallowance is outside the scope of that section. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in giving overriding effect to the procedural provision of section 143(1) disregarding the substantive

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

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,96,601) (in row no 24 of clause 20(b)) and a payment of Rs. 1,53,50,545 after the due date under the EPF Act. The aggregate of these (i.e. Rs. 3,07,01,090) is disallowed under section 36(1)(va

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

36(1)(va) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.\n54,93,734/-\n1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.\n54,93,734/- made in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) on account of\nemployees' contribution to provident fund, which was sustained

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68 to 72 of\nthe case law compilation) and CIT vs. HDFC

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68 to 72 of\nthe case law compilation) and CIT vs. HDFC

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68 to 72 of\nthe case law compilation) and CIT vs. HDFC

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68 to 72 of\nthe case law compilation) and CIT vs. HDFC

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68 to 72 of\nthe case law compilation) and CIT vs. HDFC

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. 67. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s grounds and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that:  In the assessment order under section 143(3), no fresh addition had been made and the Assessing Officer had merely adopted the income as determined under section

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

36(1)(va) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 54,93,734/-\n1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 54,93,734/- made in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) on account of employees' contribution to provident fund, which was sustained

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

36(1)(va) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.\n54,93,734/-\n1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.\n54,93,734/- made in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) on account of\nemployees' contribution to provident fund, which was sustained

FORCEPOINT SOFTWARE CONSULTING INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailforcepoint Software Vs. Assistant Director Of Consulting India Pvt. Income Tax, Cpc Ltd., Level 2, Kalpataru Bangalore Synergy Opp. Grand Karnataka 560500 Hyatt, Santacruz (East) Mumbai- 400055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacw6672P Appellant .. Respondent

68,84,190/- as against the returned income of Rs.8,53,93,350/- without any proper basis and appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO CPC under section 36(1)(va

EXCELLENT PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Similarly, In Ay 2019-20 On Disallowance Of Rs. 12,07,310/- Was Made U/S 36(1)(Va) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Assessee Has Relied Upon The Various Judgements Of The Tribunal As Well As Hon’Ble Bombay High Court, Wherein It Has Been Held That, If Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esic Has Been Made Beyond The Due Date Another Prescribed That On Before The Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income Is Allowed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

36(1)(va) and 43B, and had come to the conclusion that if the deposit has been made after the due date prescribed under respective Acts, the same is not allowable. It is a trite law that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided and settled the issue, then it becomes the law of the land

EXCELLENT PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Similarly, In Ay 2019-20 On Disallowance Of Rs. 12,07,310/- Was Made U/S 36(1)(Va) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Assessee Has Relied Upon The Various Judgements Of The Tribunal As Well As Hon’Ble Bombay High Court, Wherein It Has Been Held That, If Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esic Has Been Made Beyond The Due Date Another Prescribed That On Before The Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income Is Allowed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

36(1)(va) and 43B, and had come to the conclusion that if the deposit has been made after the due date prescribed under respective Acts, the same is not allowable. It is a trite law that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided and settled the issue, then it becomes the law of the land