“Section 41(2)”

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Jewelex India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai In the instant case, the AO could have examined the applicability of section 41(2) for taxing the quantum of depreciation claimed on building in earlier years, which we don't know whether he had examined or not. For ready reference, the said section

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

recordkeeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order to simplify ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

nrecordkeeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance\nas per Section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per Section 41(2)\nof the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation\nalready availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order to\nsimplify ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously\nallowable under Section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge\nunder Section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now\nwhatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41

LUPIN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

assessee, the insurance claim amount has to be reduced from the block of asset and any excess shall be charged as capital gains. Section 41(2) now substituted by section 50 would treat moneys payable on an asset which is discarded, demolished or destroyed as an amount received on sale

SABEENA SILK MILLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

deeming fiction in section 50. Otherwise, the gains from the sale of business asset were business income in terms of section 41(2) of the Act and therefore the brought forward loss was eligible to be set-off against the business income. The assessee relied on the decision of Madras ... case of M/s. Share Aids Private Ltd. 11. Section 41(2) of the Act provides that gain, to the extent not exceeding the difference between actual cost and WDV arising from sale of asset on which depreciation is claimed u/s 32(1)(i) of the Act, shall be treated

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT\n[2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the\nAct for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has\nconcluded that section 41

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41

JCIT (OSD)CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTIRES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM ITA

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Corporate Finance Division) Central Circle 1(4), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Room No. 902, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg 4464B Dcit, M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Central Circle 1(4), (Corporate Finance Division) Room No. 902, A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Old Cgo Building, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai - 400030 Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agarwal & Respondent By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit(Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent)

record- keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now A.Y. 2009-10 Grasim Industries Ltd. whatever is the sale-proceed of sale

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTIRES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

terminal depreciation in respect of each\nasset, which was previously allowable under\nsection 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing\ncharge under section 41(2) in the year of sale.\nInstead of these two provisions, now whatever is the\nsale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset ... absence of such\nparticular, it cannot be ascertained whether on sale\nof any asset, there was any profit liable to be taxed\nunder section 41(2) or terminal loss allowable under\nsection 32(1) (iii) . This amendment also strengthen\nthe claim that now only detail for \"block of assets\"\nhas

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

record-keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

record-keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... terminal depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

record-keeping. Moreover, the\npractice of granting the terminal allowance as per section\n32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2)\nof the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of\ndepreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for\ndepreciation. In order ... absence of such particular, it cannot be\nascertained whether on sale of any asset, there was any profit\nliable to be taxed under section 41(2) or terminal loss\nallowable under section 32(1) (iii). This amendment also\nstrengthen the claim that now only detail for \"block of assets\"\nhas

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

record-keeping. Moreover, the\npractice of granting the terminal allowance as per section\n32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2)\nof the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of\ndepreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for\ndepreciation. In order ... absence of such particular, it cannot be\nascertained whether on sale of any asset, there was any profit\nliable to be taxed under section 41(2) or terminal loss\nallowable under section 32(1) (iii). This amendment also\nstrengthen the claim that now only detail for \"block of assets\"\nhas