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

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

b) of such provisions. Therefore, the moment the refund is granted, as enforceable debt is created in favour of assessee in respect of interest due on such refund. Consequently, income can be said to accrue on the date of refund itself. Therefore, when such interest is actually granted along with the refund then, in our opinion, the requirement of sections

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

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

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. Therefore, while upholding in principle that the amount is to be taxed in the year of granting

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

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

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(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.” 55. Respectfully following the above said decision, this issue is decided in favour of the revenue. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 56. With regard to, Ground No. 10 which

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(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.” 55. Respectfully following the above said decision, this issue is decided in favour of the revenue. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 56. With regard to, Ground No. 10 which

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

b) of Sec. 244A(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

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

ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

68. Therefore the ground raised by the assessee has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 69. Ground No.6 pertains to the alternate contention of the AO that if Cost incurred by HO/OB towards credit risk assistance, EDP assistance HO-System Implementation Charges on behalf of Indian branch is allowed as a deduction under section 37 then the same needs