CIT v. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd.

SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

SBI CAPITAL MARKET LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-IV, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

DCIT CIR. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. S.B.I CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT SPECIAL RANGE, MUMBAI

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. vs. THE JT CIT SR-27,

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

M/S. SBI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. vs. THE ACIT RG-4(3)(3),

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…irements of section 32, i.e., ownership and usage of vehicles for purpose of and, thus, its claim for depreciation was to be allowed-Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee]” The ld. Counsel also referred the case of CIT Vs. Appollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom) which is reproduced as under: “We find that the decision of the apex court in I.C.D.S. (supra) would apply to the present facts The distinction drawn by Mr. Pinto is that the case I.C.D.S. (supra) was a case of hire purchase and not so in this case, is no distinction for the reason that the Supreme Court in 1.CDS. (supra) held that the asses…

M/S. STAR CHEMICAL (BOMBAY) P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIT - 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…, order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. vs. JCIT in ITA No.5403/B/99 dated 21.06.2005 (Mumbai-Trib.) and order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Apollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom.)(HC) relied upon by the Assessee. 14. Undisputedly, the assessee company has sold three energy saving devices for Rs.88,50,000/- in A.Y. 2003-04 and in the ITA Nos.5986 & 5987/M/2006 9 M/s. Star Chemicals (Bom) Pvt. Ltd. computation of income entire amount of Rs.88,50,000/- was offered as deemed capital gains under section 50 of the Act. Tr…

M/S. STAR CHEMICAL (BOMBAY) P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIT - 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…, order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. vs. JCIT in ITA No.5403/B/99 dated 21.06.2005 (Mumbai-Trib.) and order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Apollo Finvest (I) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 33 (Bom.)(HC) relied upon by the Assessee. 14. Undisputedly, the assessee company has sold three energy saving devices for Rs.88,50,000/- in A.Y. 2003-04 and in the ITA Nos.5986 & 5987/M/2006 9 M/s. Star Chemicals (Bom) Pvt. Ltd. computation of income entire amount of Rs.88,50,000/- was offered as deemed capital gains under section 50 of the Act. Tr…

RMC READMIX(INDIA) P. LTD ( NOW AMALGAMATED WITH RISM CEMENT LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rmc Readymix (India) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, P. Ltd., Central Circle -34, Windsor, 7Th Floor, C.S.T Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Near Vidyanagri, Kalina, Mumbai - 400020 Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400098 Pan : Aaacr4938D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…urther pointed out that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT 350 ITR 527 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apollo Finvest Ltd. 382 ITR 33 (Bombay). The Ld. counsel further pointed out that the Ld. CIT (A) has not given any cogent and convincing reason for rejecting the concurrent findings of his predecessor in the assessee’s own appeals for the assessment years 2003- Assessment Years: 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The Ld. counsel accordingly submitted that sin…

DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 1999-

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 1999-2000 The Dcit-2(3), M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd., R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Bombay House, Aayakar Bhavan, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaact4059M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 1999-2000 The DCIT-2(3), M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd., R. No. 552, 5th Floor, Bombay House, Aayakar Bhavan, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACT4059M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. A. Jaikaran (DR) Respondent by : Sh. Dinesh Vyas (AR) Date of Hearing: 17/04/2017 Date of Pronouncement: 21/04/2017 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been directed against order dated 19/03/2014 passed by the Commissioner…

ACIT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Mbmer & Shri Saktijit Dey

…ee is entitled to claim lease rental paid as deduction. Alternatively, he submitted in the event the principal component is disallowed assessee should be allowed depreciation. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Apollo Finvest India Ltd., 382 ITR 33 (Bom.) and Development Credit Bank Ltd. v/s DCIT, 40 Taxmann.com 532. 45. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record in the light of the decisions relied upon. On a perusal of different clauses of lease agreement, we agree with the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the arran…