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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

68\nof the Act on account of cash deposits and credit transactions. Since a similar\nissue has already been decided in assessee's and Revenue's appeal for the\n assessment year 2016-17, therefore the findings/conclusions rendered therein\nshall apply mutatis mutandis. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in assessee's\nappeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised

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

68\nof the Act on account of cash deposits and credit transactions. Since a similar\nissue has already been decided in assessee's and Revenue's appeal for the\n assessment year 2016-17, therefore the findings/conclusions rendered therein\nshall apply mutatis mutandis. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in assessee's\nappeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised

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

68\nof the Act on account of cash deposits and credit transactions. Since a similar\nissue has already been decided in assessee's and Revenue's appeal for the\n assessment year 2016-17, therefore the findings/conclusions rendered therein\nshall apply mutatis mutandis. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in assessee's\nappeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised

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

68\nof the Act on account of cash deposits and credit transactions. Since a similar\nissue has already been decided in assessee's and Revenue's appeal for the\n assessment year 2016-17, therefore the findings/conclusions rendered therein\nshall apply mutatis mutandis. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in assessee's\nappeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE- 5(4), MUMBAI vs. PRITHVI REALTORS AND HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Prithvi Realtors & Hotels Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-5(4), Vs. 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Room No. 427, Anant Kanekar Marg, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra (East), G Block, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Bandra (E), Pan : Aaccp6911E Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

43B of the Act amounting to Rs. 14,29,87,746/-, closing work- in-progress to be carried out was determined at Rs. 87,68,68,284/-. There was however no adjustment to the returned loss and the assessed loss was determined as returned by the assessee at Rs 44,025 vide order passed u/s 143(3) dated

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

43B(f) of the Act, it was claimed that the AO may be directed to give effect to the 42 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 aforesaid claim as and when the Supreme Court decides this issue in the case of Exide Industries Ltd, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling. We direct

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

68,03,979/- without\nconsidering Accounting Standards based on matching\nprinciple.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of\nRs.68,16,10,308/- made by the AO being the expenditure\nincurred in relation to income to which section

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

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 addition towards unsecured loans alongwith interest thereon received from Josh Trading Company

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

68,03,979/- without considering Accounting Standards based on matching principle." 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.68,16,10,308/- made by the AO being the expenditure incurred in relation to income to which section

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 43B of the Act, the Co-ordinate Bench after considering the issue on merits has deleted the addition. Taking into consideration, entirety of facts we respectfully follow the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09 and confirm the findings of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance. Consequently, ground No.4 of the appeal

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 43B of the Act, the Co-ordinate Bench after considering the issue on merits has deleted the addition. Taking into consideration, entirety of facts we respectfully follow the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09 and confirm the findings of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance. Consequently, ground No.4 of the appeal

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

section 43B of the Act and that these amendments are clarificatory in nature, the addition made by the CPC, Bangalore on account of delayed payment of employee's contribution of PF/ESI of Rs. 3,07,01,091/- is confirmed. Therefore his ground of appeal is in respect of this issue is dismissed. 6. After considering the submissions made

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE 6(3),

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

43B of the Act which has been dealt with by the A.O. at para No. 9-9.5 of his order. The ld. CIT(A) dealt with this issue at page No. 2, para 5 of his order and deleted the disallowance by following the order of the Tribunal in earlier years. From the record, we found that the Tribunal

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:

43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. [Para 54]” 7. The Ground No.1 raised by assessee is duly covered by the decision of the Apex Court mentioned (supra) both in terms of law and facts

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

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

43B of the Act has been allowed by the Tribunal in earlier years and, therefore, this ground now is rendered infructuous. 6. We find that a similar issue came up for consideration before the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in Grasim Industries Ltd. v/s ACIT, in ITA no.4753/Mum./ 2004 and ITA no.5584/Mum./2004

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

43B of the Act has been allowed by the Tribunal in earlier years and, therefore, this ground now is rendered infructuous. 6. We find that a similar issue came up for consideration before the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in Grasim Industries Ltd. v/s ACIT, in ITA no.4753/Mum./ 2004 and ITA no.5584/Mum./2004

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 3(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 relates to payment of service tax. Sub-section (1) thereof stipulates that every person, providing taxable service to any person, shall pay service tax at the rate\nCGST Act, 2017\nGST\n(1) Every deposit made towards tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other amount by a person by internet banking or by using credit or debit cards