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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

…eligible for depreciation.\n(i)\nGuruji Entertainment Network Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 14 SOT 556\n(Delhi)\n(ii)\nBharatbhai J. Vyas' case (supra).\nthat reliance was also placed on the decision of ITAT in the case of M.M.\nNissim & Co. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 18 SOT 274 (Мит.)\n8. 3. The sum and substance of the above is that the 'right' acquired by the assessee\nthrough the non-compete agreement, on the facts of the present case, was not an\n'asset' at all. In order to buttress the assessee-company contention it is pertinent to\nmention here the definition of 'asset' given in Advanced Law Lexicon by P.\nRamanat…

WADIA GHANDY & CO.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

…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

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

…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/…