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\nyear in which it is granted and not in the year in which\nproceedings under section 143(1)(a) attain finality.\n16. The matter will now go to the regular Bench for decision on\nmerits.” (Emphasis Supplied)\n10. 4. We note that the CIT(A) has decided the issue in the following

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

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

68,31,954/- during\nthe year ended 31.03.2017 and, out of abundant caution,\ndisallowed 30 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 50,49,586/-\nunder section 40(a) of the Act in A.Y. 2017–18 (a copy of the\nstatement of computation of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was placed\non record). It was further submitted that

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

68,31,954/- during\nthe year ended 31.03.2017 and, out of abundant caution,\ndisallowed 30 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 50,49,586/-\nunder section 40(a) of the Act in A.Y. 2017–18 (a copy of the\nstatement of computation of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was placed\non record). It was further submitted that

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

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

Section 14A(2) of the Act, read\n40\nITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others\nM/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.\nwith Rule 8D of the Rules, before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to\nrecord satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance\nunder Section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases

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

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

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

244A of the Act interest in earlier year, the AO is directed to allow the same\nin the year under consideration while arriving at taxable income of the Appellant.\nGROUND NO.4 - Enhancement of income by disallowing alleged delayed payment of\nemployee contribution to Provident Fund (PF) & Labour Welfare Fund (LWF) u/s. 36(1)\n(να)\n1. the CIT (A) erred

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,COLOGNE, GERMANY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

68,81,654 under the head 'Profits and gains of business of profession' as\nclaimed by the Appellant in its return of income.\n13. Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 7, ground no. 10 and 12 above, the\nlearned AO has on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law,\nand based on the directions

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

b) Ground No. 2 to 2.2: Disallowance of INR 19,35,01,258/- being interest on Capital Work-in- Progress under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. (c) Ground No. 3 to 3.7: Disallowance of INR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (d) Ground

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

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 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

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