CIT v. Pfizer Ltd.

The Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

…of which The assessee would have been able to produce good quality of product and entitled for a higher claim of deduction under section 80IB and hence the said receipt is derived from the eligible business Reliance is placed in the case of Pfizer Corporation 330 ITR 62 9.4. The Ld. counsel also drew our attention upon the credit note issued by the said party in which it was stated that the compensation was given as per discussions made with the concerned executives of the said party and assessee on account of bad production. 9.5. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that disallowance has been rightly upheld by the Ld. C…

The Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

…of which The assessee would have been able to produce good quality of product and entitled for a higher claim of deduction under section 80IB and hence the said receipt is derived from the eligible business Reliance is placed in the case of Pfizer Corporation 330 ITR 62 9.4. The Ld. counsel also drew our attention upon the credit note issued by the said party in which it was stated that the compensation was given as per discussions made with the concerned executives of the said party and assessee on account of bad production. 9.5. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that disallowance has been rightly upheld by the Ld. C…

The Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

…of which The assessee would have been able to produce good quality of product and entitled for a higher claim of deduction under section 80IB and hence the said receipt is derived from the eligible business Reliance is placed in the case of Pfizer Corporation 330 ITR 62 9.4. The Ld. counsel also drew our attention upon the credit note issued by the said party in which it was stated that the compensation was given as per discussions made with the concerned executives of the said party and assessee on account of bad production. 9.5. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that disallowance has been rightly upheld by the Ld. C…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. CIT(A) 3, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06 Syngenta India Ltd., The Dy. Cit 1(3), Amar Paradigm, Mumbai Vs. S N 110/11/3 Baner Road, Pune 411 045 Pan Aaecs9424P (Appellant) Respondent)

…far as the ‘miscellaneous income’ forming part of ‘other income’ is concerned the same comprised of interest, insurance claim and lease rent. On insurance claim he submitted that, now there is decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 330 ITR 62 (Bom) in favour. Regarding interest and lease rent also there were various decisions, which have been cited before the CIT(A) in the penalty proceedings. He further pointed out in the earlier years also, no penalty was levied on similar disallowance u/s. 80 IB. In support of this contention he also pointed out to the relevant order of the AO f…

DCIT Cir. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Metro Exporters P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

…sessing officer for fresh consideration and in accordance with law. While passing fresh order, the assessing officer shall also take into consideration, the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Pfizer Limited reported in (2011) 330 ITR 62 (Bom). ” Hence, keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, this ground of appeal is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and to pass order in accordance with observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in Topman Exports (supra) and in accordance with law. Thus this Ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Next…

M/S. Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

…sessing officer for fresh consideration and in accordance with law. While passing fresh order, the assessing officer shall also take into consideration, the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Pfizer Limited reported in (2011) 330 ITR 62 (Bom). ” Hence, keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, this ground of appeal is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and to pass order in accordance with observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in Topman Exports (supra) and in accordance with law. Thus this Ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Next…

Ucb Indiap.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 6681/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ucb India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito 7(3)-3, बनाम/ 504, Peninsula Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 6454/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Ito 7(3)-3, Ucb India Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 504, Peninsula Towers, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

…claim against various operating losses/breakages at the factory and distribution stages. These are the salvaged value of operational losses and relate to the business operations of the assessee. Drawing our attention to the decision in the case of Pfizer Ltd (330 ITR 62), it was held that insurance claim form part of profits of the business and therefore cannot be excluded while computing business profits for the purpose of Sec. 80HHC of the Act. 14.2. With reference to miscellaneous income, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that this amount represents sale of scrap generated from wastage or breakage of b…

Marico Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG. 9(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./8858/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Marico Ltd. ACIT-6(3), Range-9(2) Rang Sharda, K.C. Marg, Bandra (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 050. Mumbai-400 020. PAN: AAACM 7493 G (अपीलाथ"…

Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 9(1), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5474/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Circle-9(1) Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Vs. Off Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50. Pan: Aaacg 1255 E आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5348/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Mumbai-400 050. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8376/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Bandra (W),Mumbai-50. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8758/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Dcit, Circle-9(1) Vs. M/S.Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 018. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Debashish Chandra Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal Bohra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

…ultancy services(Rs. 12.91 lakhs)sundry creditors balances written back (Rs.1.01lakhs) and sundry income (Rs. 39.88 lakhs).With regard to consultancy services,it was argued that issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd(330 ITR 62), that in the cases of TV Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.(222 ITR 344),Eastern International Hotel Ltd.(93 ITD 233) the issue of sundry credit balances written back has been decided in favour of the assessee, that in the cases of Alfa Lavel (India)Ltd.(295ITR451)& Abhishek Industries Ltd.(217Taxmann104),the issue of sundry income for the Gharda Chemi…

DCIT (TDS) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Portland India Outdoor Advertising Pltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1741/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Portland India Outdoor बनाम/ Tax (Tds) 2(2), Advertising Private Ltd. Vs. R.No.703, 7Th Floor, 8Th Floor, Commerz Smt.K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic International Business Park, Hospital Building, Oberoi Garden City, Off. Charni Road, Western Express Highway, Mumbai - 400002 Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp1311M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…an accountant in such form as may be prescribed.” 4.1. By going through the said orders it is apparent that the learned CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of order passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Pfizer Ltd., 330 ITR 62 (Bom.). The finding of the said case is also mentioned below:- “4.2 I have considered the above submissions of the appellant as well as the facts of the case. It is seen that an amount of Rs.5,49,796/- was quantified by the chartered accountants of the appellant in the tax audit report for 8 Assessment Year: 2009-10 disallowance under section 40…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: S/Shjogindersingh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5394/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 6 B&C, Bhaktawar , Nariman Point Old, Cgo Complex 8Th Floor Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacj 1000 A. आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 Vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप संसंसंसं./ C.O. No.242/Mum/2014 ""या"ेप ""या"ेप ""या"ेप आयकर अपील सं./Arising Out Of Ita/5495/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-8 M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Ashish Heliwal Assessee By: Shri Ashok Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 10.6.2013,Of Cit(A)-37 Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us,The Ar Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing The C.O. Filed By It.Hence,Same Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed.

…e year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim.” Respectfully following the above, Ground No.2 is decided against the AO. ITA No.5394/Mum/2-13(Assessee’s Appe…

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

…the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case. Our attention has been drawn by him upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court available at pages No. 7 to 8 of the paper book. This judgment is also reported as CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd 330 ITR 62. In this judgment, Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the order of Tribunal holding that the rental income received by the assessee from sub-lease of the commercial prices was to be considered as ‘income from house property’. It was argued that the DRP has illegally confirmed the action of AO. On the other hand, Ld CIT DR has relied upon the orders o…

ACIT CC-8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

…e year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim. 15. In ITA No. 4752/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2008-09, the ground taken by the revenue with regard to delet…

ACIT CC.8, Mumbai vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

…e year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim. 15. In ITA No. 4752/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2008-09, the ground taken by the revenue with regard to delet…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

…e year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim. 15. In ITA No. 4752/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2008-09, the ground taken by the revenue with regard to delet…

ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai vs. M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

…e year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim. 15. In ITA No. 4752/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2008-09, the ground taken by the revenue with regard to delet…

Jindal Drugs Ltd, Mumbai vs. M/S. ACIT Cen Cir-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

…e year under consideration. It was, therefore, held that assessee is entitled for depreciation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of KJS India Pvt. Ltd. 340 ITR 380, and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. 233 CTR 521. Respectfully following these decisions, we do not find any ground/reason for declining the assessee’s claim for depreciation in respect of assets forming part of block of asset. AO is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim. 15. In ITA No. 4752/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2008-09, the ground taken by the revenue with regard to delet…