ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAGDISH C. DHABALIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 50C of the I.T. act, 1961) 76,18,000 Indexed cost of acquisition (as claimed by the assessee) 1,80,656 Long Term Capital Gains 74,37,344 Exemption u/s 54EC for investment in Rural Electrification Bonds (As claimed by the assessee) 25,00,000 Taxable long-term-capital-gains 49,37,344 5. At the stage

DCIT (IT) - 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO INSTITUTIONEEL EMERGING MARKETS FONDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

section 74 of the Act as per which any brought forward long term brought forward long term & short term losses have to be set off & short term losses have to be set off Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Robeco Institutioneel Emerging 3 Markets Fonds & Robeco Q1 Markets Fonds & Institutional Emerging Markets Institutional Emerging Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund Enhanced Index Equities Fund

DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO QI INSTITUTIONAL EMERGING MARKETS ENHANCED INDEX EQUITIES FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

section 74 of the Act as per which any brought forward long term brought forward long term & short term losses have to be set off & short term losses have to be set off Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Robeco Institutioneel Emerging 3 Markets Fonds & Robeco Q1 Markets Fonds & Institutional Emerging Markets Institutional Emerging Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund Enhanced Index Equities Fund

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

482/- 8,45,13,02,470/- 7,49,13,26,247/- income 6. In A.Y. 2017–18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 82,10,149/- under section 36(1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs. 92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed payment

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

482/-\nRs.\n8,45,13,02,470/-\nRs.\n7,49,13,26,247/-\n6. In A.Y. 2017–18, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees' contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 82,10,149/- under section 36(1)(va), disallowed deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments amounting to Rs. 92,31,072/-, disallowed interest on delayed

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

capital gain as 17,04,264 discussed at para 4 3. Income from other sources 29,602 as per statement Gross total income 17,22,088 Less : Deduction under chapter 29,602 Braj Kishore Singh VIA as per statement Total income 16,92,486 Rounded off to 16,92,490 5. The draft assessment order framed u/s 144C

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

capital gains but directed verification and grant of correct\nTDS credit and treated the interest grounds as consequential.\n5. The year-wise factual matrix emerging from the assessment\norders and the appellate orders of the CIT(A) is summarised in\nthe table below:\nΑ.Υ. 2017-18\nΑ.Υ. 2018-19\nΑ.Υ. 2022-23\nΑ.Υ. 2023-24\nParticulars

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

capital gains but directed verification and grant of correct\nTDS credit and treated the interest grounds as consequential.\n5. The year-wise factual matrix emerging from the assessment\norders and the appellate orders of the CIT(A) is summarised in\nthe table below:\nΑ.Υ. 2017-18\nΑ.Υ. 2018-19\nΑ.Υ. 2022-23\nΑ.Υ. 2023-24\nParticulars

DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. DAYAL TAHILRAM PARWANIAN ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3194/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-19(3), Dayal Tahilram Parwani बनाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Floor, Brijbala Building, 21St Road, Bandra (W), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpp 6013 C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3545/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Dayal Tahilram Parwani Dy. Cit-19(3), Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 012 Vs. ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Jasbir S. Chauhanlove Kumar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.09.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are The Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26-2-2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 26-12-2011. 2

capital gain at Rs.3,24,02,482/-, further claiming deduction u/s.54EC at Rs.100 lakhs toward investment thereof in eligible bonds. The said treatment, however, did not find favour with the Assessing Officer (AO) for the following reasons :- (a) what the assessee had transferred was only the superstructure as the land did not belong to the assessee; (b) that

DAYAL TAHILRAM PARWANI,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3194/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-19(3), Dayal Tahilram Parwani बनाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Floor, Brijbala Building, 21St Road, Bandra (W), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpp 6013 C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3545/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Dayal Tahilram Parwani Dy. Cit-19(3), Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 012 Vs. ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Jasbir S. Chauhanlove Kumar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.09.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are The Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26-2-2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 26-12-2011. 2

capital gain at Rs.3,24,02,482/-, further claiming deduction u/s.54EC at Rs.100 lakhs toward investment thereof in eligible bonds. The said treatment, however, did not find favour with the Assessing Officer (AO) for the following reasons :- (a) what the assessee had transferred was only the superstructure as the land did not belong to the assessee; (b) that

ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI vs. AJAY I.. THAKORE, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/6917 /Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-11(2) Shri Ajay I. Thakore Room No.479, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1416, Dalamal Tower, M.K. Road Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aabpt 0802 G आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6602/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Ajay I. Thakore Vs. Acit-11(2) Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M.Murli Assessee By: Shri Ajay Indrajit Thakore सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.25/7/2011 Of The Cit(A)-3 Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed The Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal.Assessee, An Individual Filed His Return Of Income On 20/07/2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.56.22 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)Of The Act On 21. 12.2010,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2.40 Crores.

capital asset to be included for the cost of acquisition. It is precisely because such improvement referred to in section 48 would have reference only to that made by the previous owner that the additional provision had to be made in the deeming fiction provided in sub- section (1) of section 49. Further, the interpretation sought to be given

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

482/- was allowed instead of depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹7,74,20,633/-. iv. Disallowance of club membership expenditure of ₹64,19,440/- holding that such expenditure is capital expenditure, as it is paid for entrance fee. v. Disallowance of Non performing advances provision u/s 43D of Rs 47,05,01481/- vi. Disallowance of provision of expenditure

M/S. CAPABLE COMMERCIALS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 3(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

482) Balance offered to tax in AY 2004-05 2005-06 Less intra head set off of short term capital loss 6. of AY 2005-06 Less set off of brought forward long term capital 1,43,554 3,769,982 - 622,582 loss: 2,022,448 732,401 2000-01 2002-03 2003-04 (38,298) 694,103 Balance

VINOD K SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

capital gain and charge tax 10% but denying exemption u/s 54F without assigning any reason. 10. appellant facts are different than what modus appending mention by A.O. 11. notice u/s 148 is not valid it was served before information received at the time of service no information in possession of A.O. 12. confession of broker and gold star is general

VINOD K.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

capital gain and charge tax 10% but denying exemption u/s 54F without assigning any reason. 10. appellant facts are different than what modus appending mention by A.O. 11. notice u/s 148 is not valid it was served before information received at the time of service no information in possession of A.O. 12. confession of broker and gold star is general

GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

482/-. We find that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 10 as under in the return of income :- Income from LTCG on transfer of shares Exempt u/s 10(38) Rs 588,85,02,720/- Income from VCF as tax is paid by Fund Rs 22,52,211/- Interest on Tax Free Bonds

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY, MUMBAI

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

section 54/54F. Thus, the legislature was conscious of the fact while making use of this expression. The expression like ‘owned’ has not been used for the purpose of determining the nature of asset as short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset. The intention of legislature is clear that for the purpose of determining the nature of capital gain

STATUS CREDIT & CAPITAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negistatus Credit & Capital Pvt. Ltd., 158/164, Laxmi Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002 Pan:Aaacs 7377 R ... Appellant Vs. The Ito 4(3)(4), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent

482/- and profit declared. (iii) In respect of M/s. Buniyad Chemicals, 57,300 shares were purchased for Rs.5,91,305, out of which 53,300 were sold at a profit of Rs.6,476/-, which was booked and the balance 4,000 shares were carried forward at a cost of Rs.41,313/-. 3.2.3 It is submitted that the authorities below have