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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

143(3) read with section 144B of the Act for A.Ys. 2018–19, 2022–23 and 2023–24. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

143(3) read with section 144B of the Act for A.Ys. 2018–19, 2022–23 and 2023–24. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance

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

143(3) read with section 144B of the Act for A.Ys. 2018-19, 2022-23 and 2023-24. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under\nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of\nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such\n assessment year by reason of the failure on the part

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under\nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of\nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such\n assessment year by reason of the failure on the part

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under\nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of\nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such\n assessment year by reason of the failure on the part

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under\nthis section after the expiry of four years from the end of\nthe relevant assessment year, unless any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such\n assessment year by reason of the failure on the part

TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

disallowance of the deduction, it appears that the tion, it appears that the adjustment was made by invoking clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a), adjustment was made by invoking clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a), adjustment was made by invoking clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a), taking the view that the return was not filed within

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

3) read with Section 144B of the Act. 4.2. In appeal filed against the aforesaid assessment order, the Assessee raised grounds challenging the variation/adjustment made vide intimation, dated 25/10/2022, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee, inter alia, by (a) deleting the disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

3) read with Section 144B of the Act. 4.2. In appeal filed against the aforesaid assessment order, the Assessee raised grounds challenging the variation/adjustment made vide intimation, dated 25/10/2022, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee, inter alia, by (a) deleting the disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

3) read with Section 144B of the Act. 4.2. In appeal filed against the aforesaid assessment order, the Assessee raised grounds challenging the variation/adjustment made vide intimation, dated 25/10/2022, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee, inter alia, by (a) deleting the disallowance

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

143(3) order the claim under Section 80JJAA itself is disallowed and a finding is given disallowed and a finding

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of In ground No. 3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of In ground No. 3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of In ground No. 3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of In ground No. 3, the Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer chose not to disallow the claim of the Petitioner for deductions