← All Phrases

“clarificatory amendment”

MiscellaneousGeneralGeneral328 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 7035/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

nrelying only on past ITAT orders, without appreciating that\nsubstantial investments existed which were capable of\ngenerating exempt income, and without considering the\nretrospective clarificatory amendment to section 14A by the\nFinance Act, 2022?\n5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the\ncase

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

relying only on past ITAT orders, without appreciating that substantial investments existed which were capable of generating exempt income, and without considering the retrospective clarificatory amendment to section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RAJ KUMAR PALIA,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - ITARSI, CAMP AT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 453/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40

upheld the disallowance of depreciation but restricted disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to 30% of Rs. 2,16,333/- taking into account the subsequent clarificatory amendment made by Govt. in section 40(a)(ia). The relevant paras of CIT(A)’s order are re-produced below: Paras relevant ... alternative legal submission and restricted the quantum of disallowance to 30% in contrast to 100% made by AO taking into account the subsequent clarificatory amendment made by Govt. in section 40(a)(ia) as interpreted by ITAT, Delhi in DCIT Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd (2020) 208 TTJ (Del) 137. Thus

ITO (IT)- 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7523/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain
Section 195Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 971

Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 1548/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

being 1% of\naverage investments of Rs. 32,79,58,949/- to the exempt income Rs.\n27,63,18,249/-ignoring the clarificatory amendment brought in by Finance\nAct. 2022? Tax Effect: Rs. 1,78.72.846/- @34.61% of Rs.5.16.40,700/-)\n2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

ITA 1452/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

being 1% of\naverage investments of Rs. 32,79,58,949/- to the exempt income Rs.\n27,63,18,249/-ignoring the clarificatory amendment brought in by Finance\nAct. 2022? Tax Effect: Rs. 1,78.72.846/- @34.61% of Rs.5.16.40,700/-)\n2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2287/PUN/2025[2014-15- Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E

DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2286/PUN/2025[2014-15 - Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E

DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2285/PUN/2025[2014-15- Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

yielding to the machinery provision. If at all, the recasted clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the Revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section\n9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance\nAct, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective\neffect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the\nintent of the law and does

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5256/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5255/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain
Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section\n9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance\nAct, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective\neffect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the\nintent of the law and does

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5254/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section\n9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance\nAct, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective\neffect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the\nintent of the law and does

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5253/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section\n9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance\nAct, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective\neffect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the\nintent of the law and does

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5252/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section\n9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance\nAct, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective\neffect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the\nintent of the law and does

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5251/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section\n9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance\nAct, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective\neffect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the\nintent of the law and does

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5250/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5249/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO IT 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5248/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 195Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance Act, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the intent of the law and does

ITO (IT) 1.2.2, MUMBAI vs. BENNET COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5247/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 248Section 254Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section\n9(1)(vi) of the IT Act was inserted by the Indian Parliament by way of Finance\nAct, 2012 as a declaratory and clarificatory amendment with retrospective\neffect from the day and source rule on royalty came into effect to specify the\nintent of the law and does

Showing 1–20 of 328 · Page 1 of 17

...