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

1)(va)", "Section 40(a)(ia)", "Section 43B", "Section 234B", "Section 234C", "Section 270A", "Section 115P", "Section 111A", "Section 112A", "Section 234D", "Section 244A", "Section 199", "Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962"], "issues": "The appeals involve multiple assessment years and grounds, including challenges to disallowances

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

1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source, and levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. Additions and disallowances were made year-wise, and penalty proceedings under section 270A

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

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

1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source, and levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. Additions and disallowances were made year-wise, and penalty proceedings under section 270A

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

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

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

Disallowance of Finance Cost under section 37(1) of the Ground No.7 (7.1 to 7.3) Act Short grant of advance tax credit Ground No. 8 (8.1 & 8.2) Short grant of TDS credit Ground No. 9 (9.1 & 9.2) Incorrect calculation of interest under section 234B of Ground No. 10 (10.1 to 10.3) the Act Levy of additional interest under section 234C

AAWAGAMAN MERCANTILE LLP ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailaawagaman Mercantile Llp, 204, Anand Estate, Arthur Road 189, Mumbai, Jacob Circle S.O. Mumbai - 400011 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Abbfa0328F V/S Ito, Ward – 1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata ……………. Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr

270A of the Act, it is evident that the penalty was levied for under-reported income which is in consequence of misreporting as the assessee failed to disallow the STT paid and offered the short-term capital gains to tax @15% instead of @30% being the short-term capital gains arrived on sale of liquid bonds. As per the assessee

EXIM TRAC,MUMBAI vs. MUM-C-(431)(91), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20

270A(1)(c) of the Act. The issue in dispute in he issue in dispute in said decision was as under: as under: 8. Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed 8. Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed 8. Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

HI-TECH ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI,

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income. 4. The above addition was challenged by the Assessee in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Authority’ or ‘FAA’]. Vide order, dated 21/07/2022, the First Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee and restricted the addition on account

HI-TECH ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), BANDRA MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income. 4. The above addition was challenged by the Assessee in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Authority’ or ‘FAA’]. Vide order, dated 21/07/2022, the First Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee and restricted the addition on account

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowances made by the Ld. AO do not emanate from any seized material. Accordingly, following the ratio of the co-ordinate bench, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable and is directed to be deleted. 9. In respect of penalties levied under section 270A

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowances made by the Ld. AO do not emanate from any seized material. Accordingly, following the ratio of the co-ordinate bench, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable and is directed to be deleted. 9. In respect of penalties levied under section 270A

TRIG DETECTIVES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

disallowances made by the Ld. AO do not emanate from any seized material. Accordingly, following the ratio of the co-ordinate bench, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable and is directed to be deleted. 9. In respect of penalties levied under section 270A