RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

capital gains arising on shares offered under OFS, the cost of shares of Polycab India Ltd should be considered to be Fair Market Value ('FMV) of shares as on 31 January 2018in light of provision of Explanation a(i) Section 55(2)(ac) Without prejudice, provisions of section 55(2)(aa)(iia) of the Act cannot be imported into

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

section 244A of the Act, as may be due to the assessee, while giving effect to this order, in accordance with law. A.Y. 2023–24 - (ITA No. 6703/Mum/2025) Ground No. I - Addition on account of Short Term Capital Gains

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

capital gains on equity\nshares. The CIT(A) upheld the said addition and rejected the\ncontention that the same was assessable under a different head.\nThe CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow\ncorrect credit of tax deducted at source and treated the levy of\ninterest under sections 234B and 234C as consequential.\n10. Aggrieved

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

244A", "Sec 154" ], "issues": "The key issues involved are the allowability of provision for leave encashment, deduction under section 80G for CSR expenditure, correct computation of TDS credit, taxability of short-term capital gains

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

capital gains on equity\nshares. The CIT(A) upheld the said addition and rejected the\ncontention that the same was assessable under a different head.\nThe CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow\ncorrect credit of tax deducted at source and treated the levy of\ninterest under sections 234B and 234C as consequential.\n10. Aggrieved

LEGRAND NEDERLAND B.V.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

gains arising pursuant to capital reduction by Novateur as exempt from tax in view of Article 13 of the Tax Treaty and also erred in not granting refund along with interest under section 244A

IL&FS INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

capital gains amounting\nof Rs.54,71,205/- and instead upholding Learned CPC's action to offset the loss against\nIncome from other sources only.\nThe appellant prays before Your Honours to direct the Learned CPC / jurisdictional\nAssessing Officer to allow the set-off and re-compute the total income\n\n4. Ground No. 4:\nOn the facts

IL&FS INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

capital gains amounting\nof 54,71,205/- and instead upholding Learned CPC's action to offset the loss against\nIncome from other sources only.\nThe appellant prays before Your Honours to direct the Leamed CPC / jurisdictional\nAssessing Officer to allow the set-off and re-compute the total income\n\n4. Ground No. 4:\nOn the facts

INDER JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

capital gains arising on shares offered under OFS, the cost of shares of Polycab India Ltd should be considered to be Fair Market Value ('FMV) of shares as on 31 January 2018in light of provision of Explanation a(i) Section 55(2)(ac); Without prejudice, provisions of section 55(2)(aa)(ilia) of the Act cannot be imported into

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).

244A on account of assessment under section 143(3), the interest granted in earlier year gets substituted and it is the reduced amount of interest that would form part of income of that year. Thus, it would amount to mistake rectifiable under section 154 of the Act. In our opinion, if the basis, on which income was assessed is varied

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

244A of the IT Act in the computation sheet and delete the erroneous demand of Rs. 80,79,043. sheet and delete the erroneous demand of Rs. 80,79,043. sheet and delete the erroneous demand of Rs. 80,79,043. Ground 5 - Penalty proceeding Penalty proceeding 5.1 On the facts and in the circumstan On the facts

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

capital gain, which\nwould be exigible to tax and for this reason, we say that\nthere is no loss to revenue either.\n29. Thus, in view of the above, once the property forms part of the\nblock of assets, carving out the depreciation for the said\nproperty and disallowing the same goes against the spirit of\nallowing depreciation

J B ADVANI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.B Advani & Company Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,Ador House, 4Th Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, 6 K, Dubashmarg, Mumbai-400021. Kalghoda,Liongate,Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj1966D Appellant .. Respondent

capital gains of Rs.15,11,940 for the relevant assessment year, ignoring the fact J.B Advani & Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. that as per the provisions of section 32(2) read with section 71(2) of the Act, the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years stands on the same footing as the depreciation for the current year, and therefore

EBAY SINGAPORE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

capital gains be held non- taxable in India. 5. the findings of the learned DRP/ the learned AO: a) that eBay Singapore should be governed by the India-US DTAA as against the India-Singapore DTAA since the control and management of eBay Singapore was with eBay Inc in the USA; b) that the control and management of the Appellant

VOLTAS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT RANGE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Voltas Limited Dy. Cit Range 8(3)(1) Voltas House-A, 4 Th Floor, Room No.615, 6 Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400 033 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv2809D

244A (i) (a) of the Act. The fact shows that assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 23rd November, 2012 at a total income of ₹199,46,34,280/-. This return was revised on 28th March, 2014. Assessee was entitled to refund of ₹31, 48,590/-. The assessment was passed under Section

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

244A on account of assessment under Section 143(3), the interest granted in earlier year gets substituted and it is the reduced amount of interest that would form part of income of that year. Thus, it would amount to mistake rectifiable under Section 154 of the Act. In our opinion, if the basis, on which income was assessed is varied

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

244A on account of assessment under Section 143(3), the interest granted in earlier year gets substituted and it is the reduced amount of interest that would form part of income of that year. Thus, it would amount to mistake rectifiable under Section 154 of the Act. In our opinion, if the basis, on which income was assessed is varied

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,COLOGNE, GERMANY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

gains\nof business or profession ('PGBP')\n16\nX\n12\nThese grounds are consequential to the main\nand other grounds. In event the Appellant succeeds\non main grounds, tin's ground will become\nacademic.\n22 The learned AO has erred in not setting off losses 22\nincurred under the head PGBP while calculating\nthe total income and tax liability

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 11,30,08,030 Sec 40(a) (as per TAR) VRS deduction u/s.35DDA 5,85,10,841 2,43,38,41,806 Income from Business or 9,68,34,57,848 Profession Income from other sources 244A Interest on Refund Interest Income 27,25,34,751 Less: Tax free interest income