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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

244A of the Act. GENERAL The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated hereinabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. A.Y. 2023-24 (ITA No. 6703/Mum/2025) GROUND NO. I: SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS U/S 111A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,46,813/- 1

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

244A of the Act. GENERAL The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated hereinabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. Α.Υ. 2023-24 (ITA No. 6703/Mum/2025) GROUND NO. I: SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS U/S 111A OF THЕ АСТ AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,46,813/- 1

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

244A of the Act. GENERAL The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the Grounds stated hereinabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. A.Y. 2023–24 (ITA No. 6703/Mum/2025) GROUND NO. I: SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS U/S 111A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,46,813/- 1

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(1) would be assessable in the year in which it is granted and not in the year in which proceedings under section 143(1)(a) attain finality. 16. The matter will now go to the regular Bench for decision on merits.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10.4. We note that the CIT(A) has decided the issue in the following manner

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

244A(1) would be assessable in the year in which it is granted and not in the year in which proceedings under section 143(1)(a) attain finality. 16. The matter will now go to the regular Bench for decision on merits.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. 4. We note that the CIT(A) has decided the issue in the following

DCIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CEAT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

244A(1) granted to the assessee in the proceedings under section 143(1)(a) would be assessable in the year in which it is granted and not in the year in which proceedings under section 143(1)(a) attain finality.” 68

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

1,44,74,298 and it will thus be appreciated that out of the total interest expenditure of Rs. 3,93,69,566, interest expenditure at the most of Rs. 1,44,74,298 could be relatable to earning dividend income. We do not agree with the alternative contention of the learned counsel of the assessee. It is established clearly

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

1,44,74,298 and it will thus be appreciated that out of the total interest expenditure of Rs. 3,93,69,566, interest expenditure at the most of Rs. 1,44,74,298 could be relatable to earning dividend income. We do not agree with the alternative contention of the learned counsel of the assessee. It is established clearly

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

244A of the ITA. Ground # 4: Refund adjusted against demand without prior intimation u/s 245 of the ITA "On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act erred in adjusting refund of AY 2021-22 against the demand for AY 2015-16 without issuing a prior Intimation

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriindian Oil Corporation V/S. Dcit-14(2)(1), Mumbai Ltd. बनाम Aaykar Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, M.K.Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1681G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit-14(2)(1), Mumbai V/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, M.K.Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1681G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

68 months from December 2014 to July 2020 in granting refund due to the assessee. Accordingly, he argued that the assessee is entitled to additional interest @3% per annum u/s 244A(1)(b) for the entire period. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the following decisions in support of its claim. (i) Stock Holding Corporation of India v/s N.C. Tewari

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriindian Oil Corporation V/S. Dcit-14(2)(1), Mumbai Ltd. बनाम Aaykar Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, M.K.Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1681G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit-14(2)(1), Mumbai V/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, M.K.Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1681G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

68 months from December 2014 to July 2020 in granting refund due to the assessee. Accordingly, he argued that the assessee is entitled to additional interest @3% per annum u/s 244A(1)(b) for the entire period. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the following decisions in support of its claim. (i) Stock Holding Corporation of India v/s N.C. Tewari

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

244A (1)(a) at the rate of rate of two-third per cent for the month of September 2003.‖ 3. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that, the assessee is a firm of Chartered Accountants, which had filed its return of income on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.42,46,760/-. During the course of the assessment

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

244A (1)(a) at the rate of rate of two-third per cent for the month of September 2003.‖ 3. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that, the assessee is a firm of Chartered Accountants, which had filed its return of income on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.42,46,760/-. During the course of the assessment

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

244A (1)(a) at the rate of rate of two-third per cent for the month of September 2003.‖ 3. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that, the assessee is a firm of Chartered Accountants, which had filed its return of income on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.42,46,760/-. During the course of the assessment

M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMIITED ,MUMBSI vs. DY CIT(APPEAL)-RANGE-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Dy. Cit, Mumbai-8(1)(2), Or Piramal Tower, Agastya National Facelss Assessment Vs. Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Centre, Delhi, Kamani Junction, Kurla Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400070. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacn 4538 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ronak Doshi : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr & Mr. Samuel Pitta, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2022

244A of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing was engaged in the business of manufacturing of of pharmaceutical formulations as well as trading in pharmaceutical

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodtata Chemicals Limited Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Bombay House, 24, 384, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody, Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan – Aaact4059M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Atul Suraiya, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swami, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2019

1), subject to the limitation contained in sub-section (2). It was submitted by P a g e | 6 ITA No.2495/Mum/2009 A.Y. 2004-05 Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 the Ld. A.R, that the Hon‟ble High Court had observed that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec. 244A would be invoked only

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT) TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

244A of the Act 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in raising the outstanding demand on the e-filing portal of the Appellant vide Demand Identification Number 2025202337363986854C. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A 12. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after