VINAY TARACHAND CHAWLA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax Mumbai-6 [in short ‘the Ld. PCIT’] for assessment year 2020-21, raising following grounds: Ground 1 & 2 - PCIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act which is bad in law, illegal, ultra-virus, in excess of and/or in want of juri iction and otherwise void.

Ground 3 - Th and extinguis
('KFPL') of Rs.
constitute "tra
Ground
4
Rs.29,95,00,0
KPFL does no 2(47) of the A Ground 5 - Th
Rs.3,42,57,54
is no eviden irrecoverable the above issu
2. Briefly stated, partner in partners
Chinmaya Associates also having substan
Kamani Foods Privat filed his return of in total income at Rs partnership firm, the capital gain on sale o of income filed by the and statutory notices
Act’) were issued and 143(3) r.w.s. 144B
Assessment Unit vid income of the ass
V
ITA he PCIT erred in holding that the loss on shment of shares of Kamani Foods Private
42,12,27,550/- as claimed by the Appell ansfer' within the meaning of section 2(47
-
The PCIT erred in holding th
000/- on waiver of loan given to ot constitute 'transfer' within the meanin ct.
he PCIT erred in holding that the claim of 49/- is inadmissible u/s 36(1)(vii) of the nce to establish that the debt has bec and thereby directed the AO to make a ue and reassess the income.
facts of the case are that the hip firms M/s Chinmaya Es s ( in short the ‘Chinmaya’). Th ntial shareholding in a compan te Limited (in short the ‘Kamani ncome electronically on 26.03
s.1,40,11,060/-. Besides, shar e assessee shown income from of securities and interest income e assessee was selected for scrut s under the Income-tax Act, 196
d complied with. The scrutiny a of the Act was completed b de order dated 25.09.2022, wh sessee was assessed at Rs
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
2
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
n cancellation e Limited lant does not 7) of the Act.
at loss of ng of section f bad debt of Act as there come wholly an enquiry in e assessee is a states and M/s he assessee was ny namely M/s i’). The assessee
.2021 declaring re of profit in house property, e etc. The return tiny assessment
61 (in short ‘the assessment u/s by the Faceless herein the total s.3,71,74,530/-.

Thereafter, on the ba
PCIT called for the re
263 of the Act on following claim :
(i) Loss of R
Kamani Food
(ii) Capital los loan given to K
(iii) Deduction receivable fr
Associates (C
2.1 The Ld. PCIT in to section 263 of the be deemed to be erro the Revenue if in th without making inqu made. The assessee submission on merits as under:
“1.3 Loss on The assesse
1,43,33,060
order dated 2
shareholders.
by the asses
1.04,160 num and extinguis having face assessee rec aggregating t
V
ITA asis of observation by the revenu ecords and after examination is 22.01.2025 asking the asse s. 42,12,27,550/-on capital reduction o s Private Limited (Kamani), ss of Rs. 30 Crores on waiver of right to Kamani n of bad debt of Rs. 3,42,57,549/- bei rom a partnership firm namely M/s
Chinmaya).
n his show cause notice invoked e Act wherein it is provided tha oneous in so far as prejudicial t he opinion of the PCIT, the ord uiries or verification which ough vide its letter dated 28.02.2025
s as well as juri iction which a n capital reduction in share capital of e is shareholder of Kamani and wa shares for Rs 42,83,67,000/-. Pursuan
21/09/2021, Kamani reduced its capital
. Resultantly, the Kamani reduced the s ssee from 1,43,83,060 number of equit mber equity shares whereby the Kaman shed 1,42.78.900 number of equity sh value of Rs. 10 each. On capital red ceived consideration of Re. 0.50 per eq to Rs. 71,39,450 (i.e. 1,42,78,900 numbe
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
3
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
ue audit, the Ld.
sued notice u/s essee to justify of share in receive the ing interest
Chinmaya d Explanation 2
at an order shall o the interest of der passed was ht to have been 5 made detailed are summarized f Kamani:
as holding nt to NCLT held by all shares held ty share to ni cancelled hares, each duction, the quity share er of equity shares X 0.5
term capital l
71,39,450) w
Supreme Cou
(472 ITR 61
has held that the reduction subsequent p assessee wo expression "s in Section 2(4
1.4 Capital l to Kamani:
The assesse
42,06,30,032
28.02.2020 w his loan of R claimed the l
This loss is juri ictional
Information S and PCIT v
Taxmann.com
Court has he company wou section 2(14) department a the Hon'ble A respectively.
1.5 Deductio
Chinmaya:
The assessee fund from tim was Rs. 3,42
year on accru department. O
Due to embez pay the inter account and including the receivable fro
V
ITA

50 Paisa). As a result, the assessee cla loss of Rs. 42,12,27,550/- (Rs. 42,83,6
6) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court at pa t "In view of the aforesaid, we are of th n in share capital of the subsidiary com proportionate reduction in the sharehold uld be squarely covered within the am sale, exchange or relinquishment of the a 47) the Income Tax Act, 1961".
loss on waiver of right to receive the ee had an amount of receivable
2/-. The assessee signed a 'Deed of Set with Kamani whereby he agreed to wai
Rs. 30 Crores for an amount of Rs.5
oss of Rs. 29.95 Crores as short-term c s also allowed as explained by th
Systeme GmbH [2020] 114 Taxmann.com vs Reliance Natural Resource Ltd [2
m 413 Bom, wherein Hon'ble juri ict eld that 'Loan given by assessee to its uld be covered by meaning of 'capital a )' [headnote from taxmann.com]. SLP against above two decisions have been di
Apex Court in 453 ITR 741 and 286 Tax on of bad debt being interest receiv e is a partner in Chinmaya. The assessee me to time in Chinmaya on which interes
2,57,549/-. This interest was offered to t ual basis as business income and accep
Other partners also infused the funds in zzlement in the firm, the firm showed its rest accrued by writing back the same i offering for tax. Resultantly, all th e assessee written off the amount m Chinmaya and claimed the same as b
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
4
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
aimed short
7,000 - Rs.
the Hon'ble ital (P) Ltd aragraph 18
e view that mpany and ding of the mbit of the asset" used loan given e for Rs.
ttlement' on ve or settle lakhs and capital loss.
he Hon'ble ens Nixdorf m 531 Bom
[2019] 111
tional High subsidiary asset' under P filed by ismissed by xmann 435
vable from e introduced t receivable tax year on pted by the Chinmaya.
inability to in books of he partners of interest bad debt.”

IT rejected the contention of th uishment (extinguishment) of not transfer; (ii) loan given cann same was not held as stock-in maya’ was continue to exist, th nce, bad debt written off was n vant finding of the Ld. PCIT is missions of the assessee with respect to c loss amounting to Rs.76,07,27,550/
arefully and found unacceptable. Claim amounting to Rs.76,07,27,550/- include on M/s. Kamani Foods Pvt Ltd (KMFL) Sh aiver.
uction of Shares:
d his 50% share of M/s. Kamani Oil & rea s offset against the loss of Rs.42,12,27,
Reduction of in M/s M/s. Kamani Foods P noted that the Hon'ble NCLT- approved cap he cancellation and extinguishment of sh
. However, for a transaction to qualify a n 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the nt or conveyance of a capital asset to a tinguishment of shares without a transf ot constitute a "transfer" as defined unde reme Court in CIT vs. Grace Collis [2
t extinguishment of rights in shares does not attract capital gains/loss. Cons
12,27,550/- claimed under Section 45 is of Loan to KMFL:
set off was claimed to the extent of Rs.2
waiver of loan (foregoing the loan) which to KMFL. For such a waiver to qualify a n 2(47), the loan must constitute a "capital
Loans or receivables are excluded from Vinay Tarachand Chawla
5
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
he assessee and shares due to not be treated as n-trade; and (iii) he fund infused not allowable as s reproduced as claim of short-
/- have been of short-term es Short-Term hare Reduction alize a Capital
,550/- arising
Pvt Ltd. In this pital reduction hares held by as a "transfer"
ere must be a another entity.
sfer to a third er the Act. The 248 ITR 323]
s, without a sequently, the inadmissible.
9,95,00,000/- was given by as a "transfer"
l asset" as per m the definition of "capital as business. The lending, cann loss of Rs.29,
6.1 In light of loss arising f waiver to KM allowable un asset' as def reduction inv transfer to a Similarly, the asset since th accepting the aspects. Thus merits and on despite the f failure to co renders the interest of rev
7. The submi debt for inte
Rs.3,42,57,54
unacceptable.
was offered assessee's cl
Chinmaya As the said firm
Thence, there wholly irreco embezzlemen especially wh failed to verif
Thus, the Ass and on the gr the facts on conduct a pr assessment revenue.
In view of th assessment r.w.s.144B d prejudicial to passed by the V
ITA sset" unless held as stock-in-trade in a m e assessee, being an individual not engag not treat the waived loan as a capital as 95,00,000/- is not allowable under Sectio f the above, the assessee's claim of shor from (i) capital reduction of KMFL shares
MFL is unsustainable in law. For capit der Section 45, there must be a 'transf efined under Sections 2(14) and 2(47) volved mere extinguishment of shares another party, which doesn't constitute e loan waiver cannot be treated as trans he loan was not held as stock-in-trade. Th ese claims without proper examination s, the Assessing Officer's decision is erro n the grounds that no further inquiries w facts on record warranting further exam nduct a proper inquiry into the asse assessment order erroneous and preju venue.
issions of the assessee with respect to erest receivable from M/s. Chinmaya
49/- have been considered carefully
. It is noted that the interest accrued in as Business Income u/s 28(v) of laim of bad debt for interest receivab ssociates is inadmissible under Section 36
m continued to exist and can therefore re e is no evidence to establish that the deb overable. Mere filing of FIR against a nt doesn't automatically render the d hen recovery proceedings are still poss fy these crucial aspects while allowing t sessing Officer's decision is erroneous b rounds that no further inquiries were cond record warranting further examination.
roper inquiry into the assessee's claims order erroneous and prejudicial to th he above, I am of the considered opi order passed by the Assessing Office dated 25.09.2022, is erroneous in so the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, e Assessing Officer is set-aside on the iss
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
6
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
money-lending ged in money- sset. Thus, the on 45. rt-term capital s and (ii) loan tal loss to be fer' of 'capital
). The capital without any e a 'transfer'.
sfer of capital he AO erred in of these legal neous both on were conducted mination. The essee's claims udicial to the claim of bad
Associates of y and found n earlier years the Act. The ble from M/s.
6(1)(vii). Since, evive as well.
bt has become a partner for debt as bad, sible. The AO the deduction.
both on merits ducted despite
The failure to s renders the he interest of inion that the er u/s 143(3) far as it is the said order sue of (i) claim of short-term
(Rs.42,12,27,
Rs.29,95,00,0
bad debt for Rs.3,42,57,54
matter and r being heard to 3. Before us, the L containing pages 1 to to various pages of t the assessee was se
29.06.2021 issued u examination of issue amount allowable as loss.
3.1 Further, the Ld
Book page 6 and sub 14.11.2021 was issu any other amount c claimed by him. The and submitted that the deduction claim interest receivable (i waiver of loan receiv copy of (a) deed of assessee towards w
V
ITA m capital loss amounting to Rs.7
550/- for Capital
Reduction of 000/- for Settlement of Loan to KMFL) an interest receivable from M/s. Chinmaya
49/-. The AO is directed to make an e re-assess the income after giving due o o the assessee.”
Ld. counsel for the assessee file o 140. The Ld. counsel for the a the Paper Book and submitted elected for limited scrutiny vid u/s 143(2) of the Act (Paper B es of (i) capital gain/loss (ii) cla deduction in Schedule as BP a d. counsel for the assessee re bmitted that notice u/s 142(1) o ued to the assessee to explain t claimed as well as deduction assessee referred to Paper Boo assessee filed reply on 16.11.2
med on account of (i) bad deb ii) loss of capital reduction a vable. Along with this letter, th settlement for loan waiver (b) waiver of loan receivable (c
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
7
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
76,07,27,550/-
Shares and nd (ii) claim of Associates of nquiry in this opportunity of ed a Paper Book assessee referred that the case of de notice dated
Book page 2) for aim of any other and (iii) business eferred to Paper of the Act dated the deduction of of capital loss ok pages 8 to 33
2021 explaining bt written off of and (iii) loss on he assessee filed affidavit of the c) order dated

which is a notice issu details and documen reply filed by the asse page 63 to 90. 3.4 In view of the ab counsel, he submitte been made in the cas by the Assessing Of issues raised by th
Assessing Officer. T submitted that the a be erroneous in so fa invoking Explanation the Ld. counsel for th
Supreme Court in th
Pvt. Ltd. 476 ITR 526
that the assessee d
Officer and once the but does not make an plea and stand of the held that there may b a superficial and ran the Commissioner of on the part of the Ass
V
ITA ued on 19.03.2022, interalia, as ts on loss claimed due to capita essee in this respect is available bove notices and their reply refe ed that necessary inquiry which se of the assessee, had already b fficer and a point-wise reply o he Ld. PCIT was already exa
The Ld. counsel for the asses assessment order cannot be hel ar as prejudicial to the interest n 2 to Section 263 of the Act. In he assessee relied on the decisio he case of PCIT v. V-Con Integ
6 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supr does not control over the pen of Assessing Officer carries out t ny addition, it can be taken tha e assessee. The Hon’ble Suprem be cases where the Assessing Off ndom investigation that may just
Income-tax must record abject fa sessing Officer to establish both t
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
9
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
sking for various al reduction. The e on Paper Book ferred by the Ld.
h ought to have been carried out on all the three amined by the see accordingly ld as deemed to t of the Revenue support thereof on of the Hon’ble grated Solutions reme Court held of the Assessing the investigation at he accepts the me Court further fficer undertakes tify remit, albeit, failure and lapse the error and the prejudice cause to th submitted that in the of notices to inquire the case does not fa counsel for the ass
Kolkata High Court i
Ltd. ITA No. 103/20
passed after proper i term as erroneous an 3.5 On the issue of the assessee relied o
He submitted that a share capital of ‘Kam relied on the decision
PCIT v. Jupiter Cap share capital of proportionate reductio to be within the a relinquishment if the counsel submitted th the decision of the H
Grace Collies (supra the rights in shares, gain/loss. The Ld. c
V
ITA he Revenue. The Ld. counsel f e case, the Assessing Officer has into the claim of the assessee all in the category of no inquiry sessee relied on the decision in the case of PCIT v. Singhal E
22 wherein it is held that in as nquiry, proper application of the nd prejudicial to the interest of the f the merit of the additions, the on the submissions made befor as far as issue on loss on capi mani’ is concerned, the Assess n of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour pital Pvt. Ltd. wherein the due the subsidiary company an on in the share holding of the ass ambit of the expression sale asset used in section 2 (14) of hat the Ld. PCIT has on the co
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the a) wherein it is clarified that ex without a conveyance, does no ounsel submitted that out of t
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
10
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
for the assessee s issued a series e and therefore, y made. The Ld.
of the Hon’ble
Enterprises Pvt.
ssessment order e mind cannot be e Revenue.
Ld. counsel for re the Ld. PCIT.
tal reduction in sing Officer has rt in the case of to reduction in nd subsequent sessee was held e, exchange or the Act. The Ld.
ntrary relied on case of CIT vs.
xtinguishment in ot attract capital two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Co decision and therefor of two opinions, th erroneous in so far a view of the decision o vs. Max India Ltd. 29
of loss on account o approved by the Hon
Siemens
Nixdorf
Taxmann.com 531
Resources Ltd. [201
the Hon’ble juri ict assessee to its sub meaning of ‘capital as the learned PCIT’s ge are excluded from t stock-in-trade by a incomplete appreciat with the precedents the assessee. Regard interest, the Ld. cou said interest was alre there is no reason expenditure in the ha
V
ITA ourt, the Assessing Officer ha re, following of one of the opinio he assessment order cannot as prejudicial to the interest of of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 95 ITR 282 (SC). Similarly, rega of waiver of right of receiving t n’ble Bombay High Court in the Information
System
GmbH
(Bombay) and PCIT v. Re
9] 111 Taxmann.com 413 (Bo tional High Court held that loa bsidiary company would be c sset’ u/s 2(14) of the Act. It was eneral proposition — that loan the definition of capital asset money-lending concern — pro tion of the factual matrix and of the juri ictional High Court ding the third issue of bad deb nsel for the assessee submitted eady offered to tax by the assess n to disallow the bad debt ands of the assessee.
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
11
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
as followed one on available out be held to be the Revenue, in n the case of CIT arding the claim the loan is also e case of CIT vs.
H
[2020]
114
eliance Natural ombay), wherein an given by the covered by the s contended that ns or receivables unless held as oceeds from an is inconsistent t relied upon by bt written off of d that when the see for tax, then written off as 4. The Ld. Departm of Ld. PCIT.
5. We have heard the relevant materia invoked provisions
Firstly, the assessm as prejudicial to the Explanation 2 to sect not carried out the in the facts and circum merit of the issues assessee are not fou held the finding of th prejudicial to the inte
5.1 As far as first before us, the Ld. co issued by the Assess on 29.06.2021; 14.1
15.03.2022; and 19. notices issued by t
Assessing Officer inq share capital of ‘Kam to Kamani and redu
The Assessing Office
V
ITA mental Representative (DR) reli rival submissions of the parti als on record. In the case, the of section 263 of the Act on ment order is deemed to be erro interest of the Revenue in view tion 263 of the Act as the Asses nquiry which ought to have bee mstances of the case. The seco s raised. The Explanation sub und in order by the PCIT and th he Assessing Officer as erroneo erest of the Revenue.
reason for proceeding u/s 26
ounsel for the assessee has ref sing Officer on various dates,
11.2021; 12.12.2021; 07.12.202
.03.2022. The assessee has f the Assessing Officer. In thos quired about the claim of capi mani’ , waiver of right to receivin uction of bad debt receivable f er has examined the reply of th
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
12
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
ied on the order ies and perused e Ld. PCIT has n two grounds.
oneous in so far w of clause(a) of ssing Officer had en carried out in ond issue is on bmitted by the herefore, the he ous in so far as 63 is concerned ferred to notices interalia, issued
22; 02.03.2022; filed reply of all se notices, the tal reduction of ng of loan given from Chinmaya.
he assessee and analyzed the decisio make any addition o was selected for scru questions have been and replied by the means that Assessin the claim considered
Therefore, in our opi had not carried out
In the facts and Explanation 2 to s unwarranted and hen
5.2 As far as issue on capital reduction order of NCLT. The share holders intera
1,43,83,060 number whereby the ‘Kama equity shares and in aggregating to Rs.7
extinguished in fav circumstances, the L been extinguished wi decision of the Hon
V
ITA ons relied upon and thereafter, on those grounds, particularly, tinizing on those issues. We not asked by the Assessing Officer assessee with documentary ev ng Officer after verification of th not to make any additions on a inion, it cannot be held that A inquiry which ought to have be d circumstances, accordingly section 263 of the Act by th nce, rejected.
on merit is concerned, the first on share capital of ‘Kamani’ p company ‘Kamani’ reduced sha alia the shares held by the r of equity shares to 1,04,160
ani’ cancelled and extinguishe n consideration, paid Rs.050 pe
71,39,450/-. Thus, the shar vour of the assessee comp
Ld. PCIT was of the opinion th ithout any conveyance and ther n’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
13
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
, chosen not to when the case tice that specific on those issues vidences, which he allowability of all these issues.
Assessing Officer een carried out.
y, invoking of he Ld. PCIT is t issue is of loss pursuant to the ares held by all assessee from 0 equity shares, ed 1,42,78,900
er equity shares res have been pany. In such hat shares have refore, in view of s. Grace Collies

(supra) the transacti our opinion, the Ld.
properly. The case s
Supreme Court in t
(supra), wherein th shareholder due to r held to be squarely exchange, relinquish of the Act. Thus, eve holding that Assessin the case of CIT v. G the issue in dispute the opinion on law.
erroneous or prejudi decision of the Hon’b
India Ltd. (supra), w every loss or revenue
Officer cannot be trea for example when the permissible in law a two views are possi view with which th treated as erroneous unless the view taken
V
ITA ion does not attract capital/los
PCIT has not examined the fa squarely falls within the ratio he case of PCIT vs. Jupiter C he proportion in the share reduction of share capital of inv covered within ambit of Expla ment of the word ‘assets’ used en if it is considered that Ld. PC ng Officer should have followed race Collis (supra), the two opi and the Assessing Officer has The Assessing Officer cannot icial to the interest of the Rev ble Supreme Court in the case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme C e as a consequence of an order o ated as prejudicial to the interest e Income-tax Officer adopted on nd it has resulted in loss of rev ible and the Income-tax Officer e Commissioner does not agre s or prejudicial to the interest n by the Income-tax Officer is sus
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
14
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
ss. Whereas, in acts of the case of the Hon’ble
Capital Pvt. Ltd.
holding of the vestee company anation sale, or in section 2(14)
CIT is correct in d the decision in inions exists on followed one of t be held to be enue in view of e of CIT v. Max
Court held that of the Assessing t of the Revenue, ne of the courses venue, or where r has taken one ee it cannot be of the Revenue, stainable in law.

Securities and Exchange Board of Ind g sub-clause (b) shall be substituted
) of clause (14) of section 2 by the F
-2026:
ities held by-
Foreign Institutional Investor which ha ecurities in accordance with the regulatio ecurities and Exchange Board of India Ac n investment fund specified in clause (a) ection 115UB which has invested ccordance with the provisions of the regu e Securities and Exchange Board of Ind
992) or under the International Financi uthority Act, 2019 (50 of 2019); inked insurance policy to which exemptio
10 does not apply 55a[on account of the d fifth provisos thereof],]
de-
-in-trade [other than the securities refer umable stores or raw materials held for or profession ; effects 57, that is to say, movable propert nd furniture) held 57 for personal use 57
ber of his family dependent on him, but ex wellery; rchaeological collections; rawings; aintings; culptures; or ny work of art.
xplanation.-For the purposes of this sub cludes- naments made of gold, silver, platinum o etal or any alloy containing one or mo etals, whether or not containing any recious stone, and whether or not worke earing apparel; recious or semi-precious stones, whethe rniture, utensil or other article or worke
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
16
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
dia Act, 1992 (15 of d for existing sub-
Finance Act, 2025, as invested in such ons made under the ct, 1992 (15 of 1992);
) of Explanation 1 to such securities in ulations made under dia Act, 1992 (15 of ial Services Centres n under clause (10D) e applicability of the rred to in sub-clause r the purposes of his ty (including wearing
7 by the assessee or xcludes- b-clause, “jewellery”
or any other precious ore of such precious y precious or semi- ed or sewn into any er or not set in any ed or sewn into any we
58[(iii) agricultura
(a) in mu co tow an 61[
62[(b) in Ex me wh da
63[(iv)
6½ per cen
National
Governme
66[(v)
Special Be 67[(vi)
Gold Depo deposit ce notified by 69[ 70[Explanation
“property” include or in relation to an or any other rights
71[Explanation 2.-F
(a) the expres assigned t
(b) the expres clause (h)
(42 of 195
V
ITA earing apparel;]
al land 59 in India, not being land situate- any area which is comprised within unicipality 59 (whether known as a mu rporation, notified area committee, tow wn committee, or by any other name) or nd which has a population 60 of not less
[***] ; or any area within the distance, measured
(I) not being more than two kilome limits of any municipality or canton to in item (a) and which has a pop ten thousand but not exceeding one
(II) not being more than six kilometres, of any municipality or cantonment item (a) and which has a populati lakh but not exceeding ten lakh; or (III) not being more than eight kilome limits of any municipality or canton to in item (a) and which has a pop ten lakh.
xplanation.-For the purposes of this sub- eans the population according to the last hich the relevant figures have been publi ay of the previous year;]]
nt Gold Bonds, 1977, 64[or 7 per cent Gol
Defence Gold Bonds, 1980,] issued nt;]
earer Bonds, 1991, issued by the Central osit Bonds issued under the Gold Deposi ertificates issued under the Gold Monetis y the Central Government.]
1.]-For the removal of doubts, it is h es and shall be deemed to have always in n Indian company, including rights of ma s whatsoever.]
For the purposes of this clause- ssion “Foreign Institutional Investor” sha to it in clause (a) of the Explanation to sec ssion “securities” shall have the meani of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (R
56) 72;]”
Vinay Tarachand Chawla
17
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
the juri iction of a unicipality, municipal wn area committee, a cantonment board s than ten thousand aerially,- etres, from the local nment board referred pulation of more than e lakh; or , from the local limits t board referred to in ion of more than one etres, from the local nment board referred pulation of more than -clause, “population”
t preceding census of ished before the first ld Bonds, 1980,] 65[or d by the Central
Government ;]
it Scheme, 1999 68[or sation Scheme, 2015]
hereby clarified that ncluded any rights in anagement or control all have the meaning ction 115AD; ng assigned to it in Regulation) Act, 1956

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

V
ITA ve discussion, the order of the oth on Explanation-2 to section y, we set aside the order of th he Assessing Officer.
he appeal of the assessee is allow ced in the open Court on 26/0
-
S
AJAGOPAL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Vinay Tarachand Chawla
19
A No. 3371/MUM/2025
Ld. PCIT is not n 263 as well as he Ld. PCIT and wed.
09/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai