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

36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit

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

36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit

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.

capital amounting to Rs. 14, 61,710/- and entrance fees and subscriptions paid at clubs amounting to Rs. 1,18,95,580/-. These claims of the assessee were duly reported by the Tax Auditor in his Tax Audit Report vide clause 21(a) and 21(b). In the given situation clause (iv) of section 143(1

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

va) in respect of LWF amounting\nto Rs. 31,812/- be deleted and the AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 16, 16,236/-\nu/s. 43B of the Act.\n5. without prejudice to the above, such adjustment / disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2012-13

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

va) in respect of LWF amounting\nto Rs. 31,812/- be deleted and the AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 16, 16,236/-\nu/s. 43B of the Act.\n5. without prejudice to the above, such adjustment / disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

capital receipt. In fact, in order to put an end\nto the litigation, Parliament stepped into specifically tax such receipts under\nnon-competition agreement with effect from 1-4-2003.\n8. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the\nKarnataka High Court dated 29-10-2009 and restore the order of the Tribunal.\nConsequently, the civil

BRILLPHARMA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC,BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1)(va). That question, in our humble understanding, can be relevant, for example, when a call is required to be taken on merits in respect of an assessment under section 143(3) or under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, or when no findings were to be given on the scope of permissible adjustments under section

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) to the extent of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- and the finance cost disallowed to the extent of Rs. 9,06,801/-. The AO passed the final assessment order as per the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised various grounds and sub-grounds with regard

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

36(1)(va), disallowance under\nsection 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of\ncapital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source, and levy\nof interest under sections 234B and 234C. Additions and\ndisallowances were made year-wise, and penalty proceedings\nunder section 270A were initiated wherever applicable.\n4. Aggrieved by the respective assessment orders, the assessee

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

gainful understanding and force from the decisions of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the ld. Counsel as discussed\nabove, we find that in the present case, the amount received by the\nassessee as non-compete fee under a negative covalent is a capital\nreceipt. We are in agreement with the ld. Counsel for the submissions\nmade

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

gainful understanding and force from the decisions of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the ld. Counsel as discussed\nabove, we find that in the present case, the amount received by the\nassessee as non-compete fee under a negative covalent is a capital\nreceipt. We are in agreement with the ld. Counsel for the submissions\nmade

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

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

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

Gains\"\nand section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer of capital assets,\npursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the purview of section 45 of\nthe Act. Therefore, we are of the view that these provisions have no\nrelevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements

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

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

ASHISH VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(1) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am National Faceless Appeal Ashish Vaid Centre (Nfac), 115, Maker Chambers Iii, Delhi Nariman Point, Vs. Ito 3(1)(1)Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 021 M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aacpv7792A Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022

capital loss in bad in law and void ab initio. 1. DECISION: The submissions made on behalf of the appellant have been duly considered. The only issue in appeal is admissibility of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to employees contribution to ESI & PF fund if the employer deposits the same after