IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘E’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3511/MUM/ 2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) ITA No. 3512/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

Tata Motors Limited DCIT Circle – 3(4), Mumbai Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody v Room No. 559, 5th Floor, Street, Hutatma Chowk, s Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai –

Mumbai-400001. 400020.

PAN: AAACT 2727 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R PER ARUN KHODPIA, AM:

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals (In short “ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, dated 27.03.2025 for A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing officer (in short “Ld. AO”), National Faceless Assessment Centre, u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act (In short “The Act”) dated 30.03.2022, for both the aforesaid assessment years.

2 Both the aforesaid appeals pertain to the same assessee having similar facts, circumstances and legal grounds involved therein, therefore, the same are heard together and are being disposed of under this common order.

3. ITA No. 3511/Mum/2025 for the A.Y. 2014-15 has been taken up as the lead case wherein our observations, deliberations and adjudication shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal i.e., ITA No. 3512/Mum/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16.

ITA No. 3511/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15)

4. At the outset, Shri Rajan Vora, Authorized Representative of the assessee (in short ‘ld. AR’) briefed the background of the case stating that the appellant-company is an Indian Multinational Automotive Manufacturing Company producing passenger cars, trucks, vans, coaches, buses, luxury cars, sports cars and construction equipment. For the year under consideration i.e., AY 2014-15, the appellant-company had filed its return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring loss of Rs. 5567.15 crores under the normal provisions of Income-tax Act and loss of Rs. 950.44 crores u/s 115JB of the Act. There after appellant revised its return on 30.03.2016 declaring loss of Rs. 5567.15 crores under the normal provisions of Income-tax Act and loss of Rs. 14.58 crores u/s 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, appellant’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS vide notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.08.2015. The scrutiny proceedings came to be completed vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act dated 07.02.2018 determining assessed loss of Rs. 6401.24 crores under the normal provisions of the Act and loss of Rs. 233.21 crores u/s 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 of the Act was passed on 28.05.2018.

5. Afterwards, the case of assessee was reopened vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021, the reasons for reopening are summarized, as under:

“i. Deduction of claim u/s 32AC of the Act of Rs. 14.64 crores with respect to assets to the extent of Rs. 97.57 crores which were not acquired during the prescribed period as alleged by the assessing officer.

ii. Tax credit allowed u/s 115JAA of the Act of Rs. 163.23 crores against the income assessed u/s 115BBD of the Act should not be allowed and hence income has escaped assessment.”

6. In response to the impugned notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income and during the reopening proceedings have submitted requisite details and information as sought by the ld. AO. The reassessment proceedings were thereafter concluded vide the impugned order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022, whereby the ld. AO assessed the assessee’s loss at Rs. 4985.85 crores under the normal provisions, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s 32AC of the Act amounting to Rs. 14.64 crores, dropped the proposed adjustment pertaining to set-off of MAT credit against tax computed u/s 115BBD amounting to Rs. 163.23 crores