ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

80G, provided the statutory conditions thereof are satisfied. The Assessing Officer, having examined the claim and allowed the deduction, had taken a plausible and legally sustainable view. 31. In such circumstances, the learned Principal Commissioner could not have invoked section 263 merely because he held a different opinion on the matter. Substitution of one plausible view by another

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

NAV CONSEC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

section 80G of the Act did not include any donation made in kind in the shape of shares. We note that the assessee company in lieu of its shares (on a premium) has received shares of other companies of equal value as found, as a matter of fact by the Assessing Officer at para 3.1 of the assessment order

PRUDENT INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 80G to the extent of ₹10,50,000/–. 3. The brief facts relevant to the controversy are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 24/12/2021 declaring a total income of ₹25,68

THE RUBY MILLS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, Vs (Central)-5, Aayakar Bhawan, J.K. Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

68 and addition under head income from business and profession. The assessment was revised, ld. Pr. CIT by exercising jurisdiction under section 263 on 10.03.2025. Before passing the order under section 263, the ld. Pr. CIT issued show cause notice dated 28.02.2025. In the show cause notice, the ld. Pr. CIT noted that on perusal of assessment record

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

68 of the financials in factual paper book) The provisions of section 22 of the Act, which is the charging section for the purpose of house property income, specifically grants exemptions to the properties occupied by the Assessee during the course of business. 13. In the current case under consideration, the Appellant wishes to submit that unsold flats

GLITCH MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

68,083.\nWithout prejudice, disallowance of section 36(1)(va) of the Act of\nRs.9,24,959 on account of alleged late deposit of contribution\nmade to Provident Fund\n8. Without prejudice to the above, erred in confirming the\ndisallowance of Rs.9,24,959 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act\ntowards contribution to Provident Fund made

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

80G to meet Corporate Social Responsibility. Additional claim of foreign tax credit not granted: Rs. 78,67,620 5. Erred in disallowing the additional claim of foreign tax credit of Rs. 78,67,620 on the ground that the Appellant did not file the Form 67 before the due date of filing the Return of Income (‘ROI’); 6. Erred

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

80G while deciding the corresponding ground for A.Y. 2017–18. Since the facts and the applicable legal principles for the year under consideration are identical, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate the issue separately for this year. The findings recorded by us for A.Y. 2017–18 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this assessment year as well. Accordingly, this

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-13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SHUBHAM MOTIWALA & JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 13(2)(2) V. M/S. Shubham Motiwala & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 5, Unity Heights, Chincholi Jn, 1St Floor, Room No. 146 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sv Road, Malad, Mumbai – 400064 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahcs1597A

80G and 80GGB of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) and the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response, Authorised Representative attended and filed relevant information as called for. 3. Assessee is engaged

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

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

80G: Rs. 2,05,58,406/- Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets: Rs.12,42,89,747/- Being aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR argued and filed a paper book containing 392 pages which is kept on the record. The Ld.AR primarily argued the TP issue related

MARTIN AND HARRIS LABORATORIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PCIT), AAYKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI-400020

In the result, the present appeal by the Assessee is allowed

section dated 20/01/2022 is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The same has been passed after making necessary enquiries and after due application mind and deductions u/s 801C & 80G have been rightly allowed. 3. That the Assessing Officer