IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI MAKARAND V MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6692/Mum/2025 A.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. DCIT, Circle – 2(2)(1)

Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, MK Road

1st floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai –

Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020.

International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099.

/

PAN GIR No. AAECM6285C (

Applicant ) (

Respondent )

ITA No. 7035/Mum/2025 A.Y:2014-15 DCIT, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, MK Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1^st floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099.

/

PAN GIR No. AAECM6285C (

Applicant ) (

Respondent )

Assessee by Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND V MAHADEOKAR, AM:

These cross appeals are directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 05.08.2025 in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014–15. The assessment in the present case was originally completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2017. Since the issues involved in the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee arise out of the same appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A), these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 7035/MUM/2025

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation on the upfront concession fee of Rs. 31,03,450/- paid to Airports Authority of India by merely relying on the ITAT‟S order for earlier years, without appreciating that the right to operate the airport under a 30-year concession is, not an „intangible asset‟ owned by the assessee but a deferred capital outlay to be amortised over the concession tenure?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction of the lump-sum payment made to AAI of Rs. 16,62,33,600/- towards retirement/compensation of employees solely following earlier ITAT orders, without appreciating the factual matrix and the applicability of section 35DDA, which mandates amortisation over five years for such expenditure?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in treating the Development Fee of Rs. 348,95,74,100/- collected from passengers as a capital receipt merely on the basis of ITAT decisions for prior years, without appreciating the facts of the present year, the terms of MoCA approval, and the assessee‟s control and accounting of DF, which make it a revenue/business receipt taxable under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 41,51,500/- made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D by relying only on past ITAT orders, without appreciating that substantial investments existed which were capable of generating exempt income, and without considering the retrospective clarificatory amendment to section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022?

5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the short-term capital gains on temporary investment of surplus funds of Rs. 8,75,88,808/- during the construction phase should be reduced from project cost by merely following ITAT decisions for AY 2013-14, without appreciating that commercial operations had commenced in the relevant year and the income was not inextricably linked to project execution?

6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld