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

36(1)(va) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 54,93,734/- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 54,93,734/- made in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) on account of employees' contribution to provident fund, which was sustained

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

gains from business and profession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade", certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

gains from business and profession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade", certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

gains from business and profession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade", certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

gains from business and profession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade", certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

36 months, thus, it became long term capital asset as per section 2(29A) r.w.s. 2(42A) of the Act. Thus, profit arising on sale of such asset was long term capital gain. The assessee reiterated that fiction created by section 50 regarding depreciable asset cannot change long term asset into a short term asset. To support their contention relied

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

iii) Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to\n- Rs.84,46,95,341/-\nRs.60,79,783/-\n- Rs.5,50,86,192/-\nRs.71,75,94,432/-\n4.\nAggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave\nrelief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

iii) Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to\n- Rs.84,46,95,341/-\nRs.60,79,783/-\n- Rs.5,50,86,192/-\nRs.71,75,94,432/-\n4.\nAggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave\nrelief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

iii) Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to\n\n- Rs.84,46,95,341/-\n- Rs.60,79,783/-\n- Rs.5,50,86,192/-\nRs.71,75,94,432/-\n\n4.\nAggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave\nrelief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

iii) of sub section (1), then it is taxed as capital gains arising from transfer of a short term capital asset. Secondly, the deeming provisions has been confined only to the purpose of computation of sections 48 and 49 of the Act and the capital gains then arising is deemed to be from transfer of short term capital assets