IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5745 and 5743/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 and 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner of Larsen & Toubro Limited Income Tax L & T House Central Circle 5(4) Narottam Morarji Marg Vs.

Mumbai Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACL0140P (Appellant) (Respondent)

CO NO. 282/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 5743/Mum/2024)

Assessment Year: 2015-16 Larsen & Toubro Limited Deputy Commissioner of L & T House Income Tax Narottam Morarji Marg Central Circle 5(4)

Vs.

Ballard Estate Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACL0140P (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ronak Joshi, CA Revenue : Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT DR and Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are against the orders of Ld. CIT(A)-53, Mumbai vide order nos.

ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067371868(1), dated 06.08.2024 & ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067371345(1), dated 06.08.2024 and Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-53, Mumbai vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067371345(1), dated 06/08/2024 passed against the assessment orders by Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai, u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated

30.05.2023 for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

2. Grounds taken by the Revenue in A.Y.2014-15 are reproduced as under:

“1.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022 as invalid ignoring the fact that the original notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2021 i.e. within the extended time limit by TOLA, 2021.

2.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that notice issued 148 of the Act as invalid without appreciating the fact that the notice was issued following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the expense of Rs. 3,28,17,678/- paid as sub contracting charges to Alia Construction without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not file any documentary evidence in support of expense.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the expense of Rs. 3,28,17,678/- paid as sub contracting charges to Alia Construction without appreciating the fact that the contract work was done by Alia Constructions whereas the payment against the contract was done in the bank account held in the name of Shri Firoz Khan.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the expense of Rs. 3,28,17,678/- paid as sub contracting charges to Alia Construction without appreciating the fact that Shri Firoz Khan had never filed his return of income.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,89,87,378/- on account of improper gratification ignoring the fact that Shri Asuri Narayanan, financial controller at M/s Cognizant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., in his statement recorded under oath has specifically stated that improper gratification were paid by L & T and these payments were reimbursed by CTS.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,89,87,378/- on account of improper gratification ignoring the fact that enquiry conducted by Security and Exchange Commission, USA has held that L & T had made payment of improper gratification and same were reimbursed in form of variation bill raised by L & T.

2.1. Grounds taken by the Revenue in A.Y.2015-16 are reproduced as under:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the expense