JM FINANCIAL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO JM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONAL SECURITIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1291/Mum./2026 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) JM Financial Limited, (Successor to JM Financial Institutional Securities Limited) 7th Floor, Cnergy, Appasaheb Marathe Marg Prabhadevi, ……………. Appellant Mumbai - 400025 PAN : AAACM7079C v/s

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 4(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400020 Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram Revenue by : Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing – 23/04/2026 Date of Order – 18/05/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19.

2 ITA No.1291/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19)

“A. The learned CIT(A) erroneously considered the grounds of appeal for the Assessment year 2014-15 as against the grounds raised for the Assessment year 2018-19. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [CIT(A)] has erroneously considered the grounds for A.Y. 2014-15 instead of the Grounds for A.Y. 2018-19 under consideration, hence, the order of the hon'ble CIT(A) may be set aside and quashed. 2 The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in once again deciding the Grounds for A.Y. 2014-15 as against the Grounds of appeal raised for the year under consideration for A.Y. 2018-19, hence, the order of the hon'ble CIT(A) is bad in law and may be quashed. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order without following the due process of law hence the order may be quashed and set aside. B. Without prejudice, principles of natural justice violated 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal for the year under consideration without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard. 5. As principles of natural justice have been violated, appellant prays that the order passed by the hon'ble CIT(A) may be set aside and the hon'ble CIT(A) may be directed to decide the appeal after giving the appellant a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

Without prejudice to above the merits C. Assessment in the hands of non-existing entity non-est and bad in law 6. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deciding the ground of appeal raised by the appellant to the effect that the assessment in the hands of non-existing entity is non-est and bad in law. 7. As the hon'ble CIT(A) has not decided the ground regarding assessment in the hands of non-existing entity being non-est and bad in law, appellant prays that your honours direct the hon'ble CIT(A) to decide the said ground on merits. D. Disallowance out of support service charges - Rs. 4.72.81,296/- 8. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deciding the ground regarding disallowance of support service charges of Rs. 4,72,81,296/-. 9. As the hon'ble CIT(A) has not decided the ground regarding disallowance out of support services charges of Rs. 4,72,81,296/-, appellant prays that your honours direct the hon’ble CIT(A) to decide the said ground on merits. E. Additional disallowance u/s. 14A - 1.78.70,514/- 10. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deciding the ground regarding disallowance u/s. 14A by relying on the assessment order and

3 ITA No.1291/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19)

appellate order for A.Y. 2014 - 15 and hence the order of hon'ble CIT(A) needs to be vacated and the hon'ble CIT(A) may be directed to pass a fresh order after considering the facts of the year under appeal. Without prejudice: 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing officer should record his dissatisfaction regarding correctness of claim of assessee in respect of expenditure and to arrive at such dissatisfaction, he should give cogent reasons. The learned assessing officer has not recorded any specific dissatisfaction, the order of learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance may be directed to be deleted. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the additional disallowance made by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(3)(1), Mumbai (AO) u/s. 14A of Rs. 1,78,70,514/-. 13. The learned CIT(A) while confirming the additional disallowance u/s. 14A of Rs. 1,78,70,514/- erred in holding that the explanation offered by the appellant largely rested general assertions such as the availability of surplus interest, or minimal administrative involvement. 14. The learned CIT(A) while confirming the additional disallowance u/s. 14A of Rs. 1,78,70,514/- erred in holding that that the appellant had not produced any year specific fund-flow statements, expenditure mapping schedules, or managerial allocation records capable of demonstrating that no portion of indirect expenditure has any nexus with the exempt income. 15. Without prejudice to above, the dividends were directly credited to the bank hence the disallowance of Rs.1,78,70,514/- attributable u/s. 14A are made on scientific basis, therefore order of the disallowance affirmed by the CIT(A) may be directed to be deleted. Short credit for tax deducted at source - Rs. 21.94.653/- 16. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deciding the ground raised by the appellant regarding short credit for tax deducted at source to the extent of Rs. 21,94,653/. 17. As the hon'ble CIT(A) has not decided the ground regarding short credit of TDS of Rs. 21,94,653/-, appellant prays that your honours direct the hon'ble CIT(A) to decide the said ground on merits. G. Additional levy of interest u/s. 234A and 234C 18. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deciding the ground raised by the appellant regarding additional levy of interest u/s. 234A and 234C of the Income Tax 19. As the hon'ble CIT(A) has not decided the ground regarding additional levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C, appellant prays that your honours direct the hon’ble CIT (A) to decide the said ground on merits.

4 ITA No.1291/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19)

H. Dividend Distribution Tax and interest 20. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in deciding the issue regarding dividend distribution tax and interest though the appellant had not raised any such ground before the hon’ble CIT(A). 21. Appellant prays that the direction of the hon'ble CIT(A) to the AO to verify DDT computation strictly with reference to the dividend declared and thereafter give effect to the correct figure may be deleted.”

From the perusal of the record, we find that during the year under 4. consideration, the assessee filed its return of income, declaring a total income of Rs.49,53,48,280/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and vide order dated 30.09.2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.56,05,00,090/- after making disallowance under section 14A of the Act and disallowance of support service charges. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A), inter alia, raising the ground challenging the disallowance of support service charges and the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. Apart from the above, the assessee also raised some jurisdictional grounds.

5 ITA No.1291/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19)

However, from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the 5. learned CIT(A), we find that the learned CIT(A) considered altogether different grounds of appeals and passed the impugned order. From the perusal of grounds of appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 before the learned CIT(A), as placed in the paper book from pages 8-12, we find that, vide impugned order, the learned CIT(A) considered the grounds raised by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 instead of the grounds raised for the assessment year 2018-19. Thus, we restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee for the year under consideration after taking into consideration the facts involved in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 2018-19. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical 6. purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 18/05/2026 Prabhat

6 ITA No.1291/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19)

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai