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

23 and 2023–24. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees’ contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

23 March 2024 passed by the Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh ('CIT(A)'), under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), disposing of appeal against intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 9 March 2021. The following grounds of appeal are alternate and without prejudice to one another: 1. Ground No 1

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 28 of the Act, clarifies that receipts for transfer of rights to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business, which are chargeable to tax under the head capital gain would not be taxable as profits and gains of business. Thus, the difference between the sale consideration and true value of shares

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MONSANTO INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

va) of the Act. 9. The next aspect of the dispute is as to whether such capital gain is a long term capital gain or short term capital gain. As per section 2(29A) of the Act, long term capital asset means a capital asset which is not a ‘short term capital asset. Section 2(42A) of the Act further

MONSANTO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

va) of the Act. 9. The next aspect of the dispute is as to whether such capital gain is a long term capital gain or short term capital gain. As per section 2(29A) of the Act, long term capital asset means a capital asset which is not a ‘short term capital asset. Section 2(42A) of the Act further

RAVI KANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

23''' October, 1996 to the developer / builder i.e. before the due date for filing of return of Income under Section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 313' October, 1996. (d) On 1s' November, 1996 the petitioner paid to the developer a further installment of Rs.15,00,000/- for purchase of flat pursuant to the agreement dated 16111July

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

23 and 2023–24. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

23 and 2023–24. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

23. On merits it is noticed that in assessee's case the Employees’ contributions for Provident Fund and ESI has been deposited after the due date, as prescribed in the respective statutes, which resulted into making the disallowance/addition of Rs. 27,58,890/- u/s. 36(1) (va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VOLTAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

23. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited employees’ contribution to ESIC within the permissible grace period and before the due date of filing of return for the present assessment year. The Assessing Officer held that as the payments were made after the due date the same should be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

capital gains tax as per the provisions of section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the assessee section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the cannot be denied the benefit of higher cost by relying on the sixth cannot be denied the benefit

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains as claimed by the assessee” and as such provisions contained under section 28(ii)(c) read with section 28(va)(a) of the Act are attracted. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.92,76,62,688/- as business income. Consequently ground No.1 is determined against the assessee. Ground No.2 39. Undisputedly the assessee

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains as claimed by the assessee” and as such provisions contained under section 28(ii)(c) read with section 28(va)(a) of the Act are attracted. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.92,76,62,688/- as business income. Consequently ground No.1 is determined against the assessee. Ground No.2 39. Undisputedly the assessee

ANAND MELLARAM ISSRANI ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

23(1), 1st floor, Charishma CHS, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AAAPI 1267 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Haridas Bhatt Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24/06/2025 : 25/08/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

capital gain and other sources. For the year under consideration, the return of income was filed on 31.10.2017 declaring its total income at Rs. 58,15,55,970/- and deemed total of income of Rs. 105,62,70,517/- u/s 115JB of the Act. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted by DDIT (investigation unit

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

capital gain and other sources. For the year under consideration, the return of income was filed on 31.10.2017 declaring its total income at Rs. 58,15,55,970/- and deemed total of income of Rs. 105,62,70,517/- u/s 115JB of the Act. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted by DDIT (investigation unit

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

23,25,727/- as capital in nature. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the Hon‘ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Nitin Spinners Ltd. in DB Income Tax appeal No.31/2019 decided on 19/09/2019 has held subsidy received under TUF as capital in nature. Similar view has been taken by Mumbai Tribunal

NITAN CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

capital gain by the assesse as per the details below : No Name of No. Of shares Rate Amount Cost of Indexed Cost LTCG (Rs.) . the sold (Rs.) received (Rs.) acquisition (Rs. company (Rs.) 1. Viraj 5,80,39,958 16 92,86,39,28 4,59,63,700 10,34,90,544 82,51,48,784 Profiles Ltd. Total

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

capital gain by the assesse as per the details below : No Name of No. Of shares Rate Amount Cost of Indexed Cost LTCG (Rs.) . the sold (Rs.) received (Rs.) acquisition (Rs. company (Rs.) 1. Viraj 5,80,39,958 16 92,86,39,28 4,59,63,700 10,34,90,544 82,51,48,784 Profiles Ltd. Total