“block of assets”

DCIT Central Circle 8 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

submitted that the loans were also utilized for purchasing fixed assets and this is evident from the fact that the value of Gross Block of Assets in A.Y. 2011-12 was only Rs.2,64,557/-, which has increased to Rs. 469,65,93,000/- in A.Y. 2022-23. Thus

DCIT Central Circle 8 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd, Pune

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

submitted that the loans were also utilized for purchasing fixed assets and this is evident from the fact that the value of Gross Block of Assets in A.Y. 2011-12 was only Rs.2,64,557/-, which has increased to Rs. 469,65,93,000/- in A.Y. 2022-23. Thus

Nilesh Ishwar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnilesh Ishwar Mehta V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 2301/A, 23Rd Floor, बनाम Income Tax-17(1) Parthenon Building, J.P. Room No. 117, Kautilya Road, Mumbai – 400 053, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Maharashtra Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpm2417P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

property was purchased and agreement was made in the FY 2012-13 only. However, for want of possession, it was taken to the Block of assets in FY 2013-14 after taking possession thereof. Therefore, the amended provisions of section 56(2)(vii) were not applicable to the facts

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

identifiable instrument. There is no scope for treating such right as ‘tangible asset’ and not qualified in the definition of ‘block of assets’ in section 2(11) of the Act. Thus, the AO disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.94,57,621/-. 5. The AO further noted that assessee ... corporate entity upon amalgamation per se, cannot invalidate the assessment order. 9. On the disallowance of depreciation on addition in the ‘block of assets’, the assessee reiterated its contention as submitted before the AO. The assessee stated that on 31/03/2015, the assessee had accumulated inventory of 15203-time share weeks

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

identifiable instrument. There is no scope for treating such right as ‘tangible asset’ and not qualified in the definition of ‘block of assets’ in section 2(11) of the Act. Thus, the AO disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.94,57,621/-. 5. The AO further noted that assessee ... corporate entity upon amalgamation per se, cannot invalidate the assessment order. 9. On the disallowance of depreciation on addition in the ‘block of assets’, the assessee reiterated its contention as submitted before the AO. The assessee stated that on 31/03/2015, the assessee had accumulated inventory of 15203-time share weeks

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Assessee that in absence of any consideration, the Assessee was not required to adjust any amounts from the tax WDV of the block of assets where the PI Assets were capitalized. Nonetheless, the Assessee (in line with its motive of not claiming any tax advantage from this transaction) voluntarily reduced ... Assets transferred to Vodafone Infrastructure Ltd. from the said block of assets. The Assessing Officer treated the aforesaid transfer of PI Assets to Vodafone Infrastructure Ltd. as a sham transaction and concluded that the transfer though without consideration did not qualify as gift and therefore, was not exempt under Section

Vodafone Digilink Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

Assessee that in absence of any consideration, the Assessee was not required to adjust any amounts from the tax WDV of the block of assets where the PI Assets were capitalized. Nonetheless, the Assessee (in line with its motive of not claiming any tax advantage from this transaction) voluntarily reduced ... Assets transferred to Vodafone Infrastructure Ltd. from the said block of assets. The Assessing Officer treated the aforesaid transfer of PI Assets to Vodafone Infrastructure Ltd. as a sham transaction and concluded that the transfer though without consideration did not qualify as gift and therefore, was not exempt under Section

Franklin Templeton Internaitoanl Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Franklin Templeton International Services (India) Private Limited Ground II - Depreciation allowance of Rs.8,37.562 on additions made to the block of assets in earlier years' assessments The AO erred in not allowing depreciation on the written down value ("WDV") of assets being items included to block of assets of Computer ... Appellant prays that the AO be directed to grant depreciation allowance amounting to Rs. 8,37,562 on the WDV of the block of assets, as a consequence to and consistent with such assessment orders. Ground III - Levy of interest under Section 234B of Rs.69,54,567 and 234D