JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent expenses incurred during the year under reference. 7.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent expenses incurred during the year under reference. 7.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent expenses incurred during the year under reference. 7.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent expenses incurred during the year under reference. 7.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent expenses incurred during the year under reference. 7.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

40A(9) of the Act will not be applicable since the provision is not towards contribution to any pension fund. We are of the view that sections 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

40A(9) of the Act will not be applicable since the provision is not towards contribution to any pension fund. We are of the view that sections 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

40A(9) of the Act will not be applicable since the provision is not towards contribution to any pension fund. We are of the view that sections 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

section 40A(3) of the Act and thereby confirming the addition of entire sales as income of thereby confirming the addition of entire sales as income of thereby confirming the addition of entire sales as income of the assessee. the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in up 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

section 40A(3) of the Act and thereby confirming the addition of entire sales as income of thereby confirming the addition of entire sales as income of thereby confirming the addition of entire sales as income of the assessee. the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in up 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

40A(3) should be applied to disallow the same in entirety. 14. We have considered the rival submissions made before us and ve considered the rival submissions made before us and ve considered the rival submissions made before us and perused the material placed on record. Firstly, we have decided in perused the material placed on record. Firstly, we have

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

40A(3) of the Act; however, deleted addition made by the AO towards MVAT u/s 43B of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The first issue that came up for our consideration is addition made by the AO towards unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act. The AO made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

68, the assessee furnished PAN of creditor and ledger confirmation and submitted that such details could not be furnished before AO due to shortage of time. On disallowance under section 40A(3), the assessee submits that they are in the business of manufacturing of readymade garments which is a labour incentive industry. The assessee required skill or semiskilled workers

ABU JANI SANDEEP KHOSLA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Air India Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit, Central Circle 3(3), Abu Jani Sandeep Khosla, Room No.404, 4Th Floor, Vs Gala No. 22 A Block, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Ghanshyam Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Veera Desai Road, Andheri Mumbai-400051 West, Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaafa 2341 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

68, the assessee furnished PAN of creditor and ledger confirmation and submitted that such details could not be furnished before AO due to shortage of time. On disallowance under section 40A(3), the assessee submits that they are in the business of manufacturing of readymade garments which is a labour incentive industry. The assessee required skill or semiskilled workers