KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI V. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

MA 183/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited appealing against the addition of Rs 211,55,19,784 as Long Term Capital Gains on the sale of depreciable immovable property for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The primary legal contention was the application of sections 50C and 43CA of the Income Tax Act, where the bank argued for the reduction of the sale proceeds from the Written Down Value (WDV) of the asset block instead of adopting the stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal had previously set aside the matter to the AO for a fresh examination, which led to the filing of this Miscellaneous Application by the bank seeking a recall of the Tribunal's order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831308 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Bhaidas Cursondas & Company v ACIT, Cable Corporation of India, Shri Pradeep P. Mody v ITO, Nirmal Singh v ITO, Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) v ITO, United Marine Academy v ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VEERBHANDRA MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUR AGRAWALFENIL BHATT BHARGAV PARIKH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 43CA; 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 183/MUM/2025 [Arising out of ITA No. 3754/MUM/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited 27 BKC, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East, Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra v/s बनाम DCIT - 3(2)(2), Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 554, 5th Floor, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACK4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/Shri Bhargav Parikh Respondent by : Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan, (Sr. AR) Date of Hearing 31.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee for recalling of the Tribunal order dated 07.01.2025 passed in ITA No. 3754/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The assessee has stated that the ground nos. 5 and 6 of the appeal pertained to the addition of Rs 211,55,19,784/- as Long Term Capital Gains on the sale of depreciable immovable property, and challenge the Assessing Officer (AO)’s application of sections 50C and Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 MA No. 183/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited 43CA to assets covered under section 50, by adopting stamp duty valuation instead of reducing the sale proceeds from the WDV of the asset block. During the course of the hearing on 27 November, 2024 for the said appeal, the Learned Counsel of the Applicant pleaded and also invited the attention of the Hon’ble Bench to the synopsis filed on 26th November, 2024 (as per Annexure-2) and chart of case laws (as per Annexure-3) submitted before the Bench during the hearing wherein the Applicant placed reliance on the following decisions:  Bhaidas Cursondas & Company v ACIT 59 taxmann.com 373 (Mumbai)  Cable Corporation of India ITA No 5592/Mum/2002  Cable Corporation of India 336 ITR 56 (Bom)  Shri Pradeep P. Mody v ITO ITA No. 1281/Mum/2011  Nirmal Singh v ITO in ITA No. 83/LKW/2024 (Lucknow)  Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) in ITA No. 4166/Del/2013 (Delhi) 3. The Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the ITAT Mumbai, in the case of Pradeep P. Mody, after considering the adverse ruling of the Special Bench in United Marine Academy [2011] 130 ITD 113 (Mum) and the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Cable Corporation of India 336 ITR 56, which was in favour of the assessee, held that the written down value of the block of assets must be reduced by the actual sale consideration received by the assessee and provisions of section 50C would not be applicable. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee contended that without referring the matter to the valuation officer, addition under section 50C cannot be made by relying on Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 MA No. 183/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited the decisions in the case of Nirmal Singh v ITO in ITA No. 83/LKW/2024 (Lucknow) and Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) in ITA No. 4166/Del/2013 (Delhi). 3.1 However, in para 13.1 and 13.2 while deciding the issue of applicability of the provisions of section 50C to assets forming part of block of assets, the Hon’ble ITAT only considered the decision rendered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of ITO v. United Marine Academy [2011] 130 ITD 113 (Mum) and set aside the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication. Non-consideration of the decision cited and relied upon by the Applicant during the hearing constitutes mistake apparent from record. 3.2 It is submitted that the order of the Tribunal dated 07 January 2025 insofar as it disposed of, grounds No. 5 and 6 of the Applicant, be recalled and an opportunity of being heard on these issues be provided to the Applicant, and these issues be disposed of, after dealing with the submissions of the Applicant. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above, it is respectfully prayed that the AO be directed to consider all judicial precedents referred and relied upon by the Counsel of the applicant while deciding the matter during de novo adjudication for Ground No. 5 & 6. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 MA No. 183/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited 4. We have carefully gone through the records and find that the issue has been adjudicated in paras 13.2 and 13.3 of the appellate order which are reproduced as below for the sake of brevity: “13.2 We find that the hon’ble Special Bench while interpreting the sections 50 and 50C of the Act w.r.t. applicability in respect of depreciable assets, block of assets and non- depreciable assets has categorically held that the provisions of section 50C are equally applicable to asset forming a block of asset as well. This finding is contrary to the contentions of the assessee as stated above paras. This decision though given in the context of section 50 of the Act, has not been appreciated either the assessee or the Revenue in the impugned order. Moreover, in the relevant assessment year, the provisions of section 43CA had already been introduced which provide that for business assets provisions of section 43CA which are akin to section 50C would apply. The matter needed due examination vis- a-vis this provision also. 13.3 In view of the discussion made above para, we are of the considered view that it would be in the fitness of things to set aside the matter to the AO for de novo consideration of all the relevant aspects of the case including the provisions of law in this regard and in the interest of principles of natural justice. The assessee would submit relevant evidences before the ld.AO who after due consideration of the same decide the issue as per the provisions of section 43CA r.w 50C of the Act. The grounds 5 and 6 are therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.” 4.1 Evidently, no decision has been given by the Bench on the impugned issue. Rather, it has been set aside to the file of the AO for de novo consideration and action as per law. As such, there is no apparent rectifiable error in the order. Since the matter has been set aside, the assessee would be at liberty to adduce its explanations and supporting details as deemed fit and the AO would take into consideration the same before arriving at any conclusion as per law. Therefore, there is no need for any rectification of the appellate order. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 MA No. 183/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited 5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/01/2026. Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्यायिक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ंबई/Mumbai ददनांक /Date 19.01.2026 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno आदेश की प्रदिदलदि अग्रेदिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अिीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 4. दिभागीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अिीलीय अदिकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यादिि प्रदि //True Copy// आदेशान सार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अदिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "