M.M.\nNissim & Co. v. Asstt. CIT

18 SOT 274Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#19586 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Judgments citing M.M.\nNissim & Co. v. Asstt. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Viacom18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5658/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. Adv

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…was not eligible for depreciation. (i) Guruji Entertainment Network Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 14 SOT 556 (Delhi) (ii) Bharatbhai J. Vyas' case (supra). that reliance was also placed on the decision of ITAT in the case of M.M. Nissim & Co. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 18 SOT 274 (Мит.) 8. 3. The sum and substance of the above is that the 'right' acquired by the assessee through the non-compete agreement, on the facts of the present case, was not an 'asset' at all. In order to buttress the assessee-company contention it is pertinent to mention here the definition of 'asset' given in Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Ai…

M/S. Premier Book Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5149/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bharat B. Garg, Sr. DR

Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after April, 1998. Drawing support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M.M. Nissim & Co. 18 SOT 274, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 5,41,406/-. 6. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages 198 Taxmann.com 104 and pointed out that the Hon'b…

Wadia Ghandy & Co., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 676/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 N.M. Wadia Building, 123, Income Tax Officer, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai- Vs. Ward 16(3)(5), Room 400001. No. 447, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaafw1081H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Parth Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/03/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Parth Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ply dated 09.12.2016 which has been extracted by the AO at para 4.1 (page 2-3) of the assessment order dated 26.12.2016. However, the AO was not convinced with the said explanation of the assessee and following the decision in M.M. Nissim & Co. v. ACIT (2007) 18 SOT 274 (Mum) and Techno Shares & Stock Ltd. 225 CTR 337 (Bom), disallowed the above claim of depreciation of Rs.2,72,076/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A), by following the order of the ITAT, Mumbai dated 29.10.2009 in assessee’s own case for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 (ITA…

Mr. Chetan Kantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)

…or commercial rights”. The ld. counsel relied upon the decision of the Hyderabad Bench in Tirumala Music Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (39 taxman.com) 196 (Hyd). However, we find that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M. M. Nishim & Co. vs ACIT (18 SOT 274) order dated 19/11/2007 held that the assessee is not eligible of depreciation by observing that the tenancy right, acquired by the assessee cannot be equated with the license provided u/s 32 so as to qualify that it is intangible asset eligible for depreciation. It is also noted that the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in its order dated 28/06/…