DCIT - 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 5664/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 July 2022AY 2013-1412 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that depreciation on FSI is allowable at 10% on the entire cost, following its own prior decision. It also upheld the allowance of depreciation on intangible assets and the deletion of interest disallowances, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed ITAT orders for AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 concerning depreciation on FSI and intangible assets, and disallowance of interest. The assessee, formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd., is in the hotel business.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the correct rate and basis for depreciation on FSI and intangible assets, and the allowability of interest expenses when interest-free advances were given to sister concerns.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32,Section 36(1)(iii),Section 40(a),Section 40A(2)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
For Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Hearing: 30.06.2022Pronounced: 20.07.2022

Heard together (5 matters)

I.T.A. No. 5662/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No. 5664/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No. 5663/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No. 290/Mum/2019
I.T.A. No. 801/Mum/2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :-

The Revenue has filed these appeals relating to A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17 challenging the orders passed by learned CIT(A)-8, Mumbai.

2.

Since some of the issues in these appeals are identical in nature, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.

3.

The assessee was formerly known as Tulip Hospitality Services limited. It is engaged in the hotel business.

4.

The first common issue conteste

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →