ORTUS AIRCRAFT LEASE 6(DUBLIN) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We accordingly so hold. 80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos. 4 to 6.8 stand allowed. Nature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease 81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that

TFDAC IRELAND II LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty's object and purpose. We accordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand allowed.\n\n62\nITA No.1198/Mum/2025 and others\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before

ORTUS AIRCRAFT LEASE 5( DUBLIN) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI

90(1) notification incorporating Articles 6 and 7 of the MLI into the India–Ireland DTAA is fatal to the Revenue‟s case. Consequently, the invocation of the MLI to deny the treaty benefits otherwise available under the DTAA cannot be upheld in law.\n\n54. Although it is not necessary to deal with the PPT invocation, nonetheless

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)

1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee by (a) deleting the aggregate disallowance of INR.5,89,90,470/- made under Section 43B of the Act, and (b) granting credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS

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)

1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee by (a) deleting the aggregate disallowance of INR.5,89,90,470/- made under Section 43B of the Act, and (b) granting credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS

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)

1) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide Order, dated 11/07/2024, allowed aforesaid grounds and granted relief to the Assessee by (a) deleting the aggregate disallowance of INR.5,89,90,470/- made under Section 43B of the Act, and (b) granting credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

DAE (SABS) 10296 IRELAND DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION), CIRLCE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the findings

SKY HIGH XLIII LEASING COMPANY LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) (1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\n\n63\nITA No.1198/Mum/2025 and others\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before

DAE (SABS) LEASING IRELAND 43 DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX.CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in\nany event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed\naligns squarely with the treaty‟s object and purpose. We\naccordingly so hold.\n80. In consequence, Grounds of Appeal Nos.4 to 6.8 stand\nallowed.\nNature of Lease-Operating Lease v. Finance Lease\n81. Before us ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the findings

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

TDS credit was allowed on (30) ITA No. 6663, 6701, 6702 & 6703 /Mum/2025 Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited the basis of Form 26AS and, in absence of reconciliation to his satisfaction, no further credit could be allowed. Ground No. VII -Levy of interest under section 234D – Rs. 5,26,845/- 61. The Assessing Officer levied interest under section 234D

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

90. We noted from the above arguments of both the sides and case law cited by the parties, that the issue is squarely covered by a decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore Vs. DCIT [2009] 33 SOT 7 (Bangalore), now merged with assessee. We noted that the Tribunal

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

90 of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that provisions relating to payment of commission to the overseas agents are dealt with by Article 12 relating to ‗Independent personal services‘ or Article 7 relating to ‗Business Profits‘ , thus such commission shall be taxable in the country of residence of the recipients and not in the country of source i.e. India

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

90 days (though classified\nas standard assets) is eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) which is made by all banks\nin the manner of provisioning as per RBI norms prescribed by RBI.\nApplicability of provisions of section 115JB\n4.1 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of section 115JB are applicable to\nappellant relying only to those

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

TDS is deducted on the interest paid and interest is debited to P&L account\n• the bond holders have no right to participate in management of the bank\nThe appellant had submitted that the bonds of Rs. 1,680 Crores outstanding\nas on 31.03.2016 have been redeemed as under:\nPerpetual Bonds – IPDI Series I\n400.00\n24-07-2017\nPerpetual