“profits and gains of business or profession”

MR. SHRIDHAR GANGARAM ANUMANDALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

advised.” 4. The assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, declaring income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession.” The assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

from House Property”, the claim of depreciation has been made under section 32, which pertains to income assessable under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession.” 7.1. Under the scheme of the Act, the allowability of deductions is determined by the head under which the income is assessed ... only the deductions specifically provided under section 24 are permissible. On the other hand, where income is assessed under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession,” the assessee may claim deductions allowable under that head, including depreciation under section 32. Consequently, the same income stream cannot simultaneously

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

incurred for the purposes of business or profession and therefore cannot be allowed as deduction while computing income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession.” The said Explanation does not impose any restriction on deductions allowable under other provisions of the Act. Section 80G, on the other

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

purpose of business and the said expenditure was allowed to be deducted in computing the business income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' under section 37(1). 8.11 I also find force in the argument of the appellant that retrenchment compensation is nothing but lump

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

assessee is that the Ld. AO\nwrongly treated the profit on sale of investments as income taxable under the\nhead \"Profits and Gains of Business or Profession\" instead of under the head\n\"Capital Gains,” as declared in the computation of income.\n12. The aforesaid issue has already been examined ... deduction on\naccount of reversal of such expenses which had earlier been offered to tax. While\ncomputing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession,”\nthe Ld. AO held that the said claim was not allowable in view of Rule 5 of the First\nSchedule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

assessee is that the Ld. AO wrongly treated the profit on sale of investments as income taxable under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” instead of under the head “Capital Gains,” as declared in the computation of income. 12. The aforesaid issue has already been examined ... deduction on account of reversal of such expenses which had earlier been offered to tax. While computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession,” the Ld. AO held that the said claim was not allowable in view of Rule 5 of the First Schedule

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

assessee is that the Ld. AO wrongly treated the profit on sale of investments as income taxable under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” instead of under the head “Capital Gains,” as declared in the computation of income. 12. The aforesaid issue has already been examined ... deduction on account of reversal of such expenses which had earlier been offered to tax. While computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession,” the Ld. AO held that the said claim was not allowable in view of Rule 5 of the First Schedule

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (TAGIC),MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT

assessee is that the Ld. AO\nwrongly treated the profit on sale of investments as income taxable under the\nhead \"Profits and Gains of Business or Profession\" instead of under the head\n\"Capital Gains,” as declared in the computation of income.\n12. The aforesaid issue has already been examined ... deduction on\naccount of reversal of such expenses which had earlier been offered to tax. While\ncomputing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession,”\nthe Ld. AO held that the said claim was not allowable in view of Rule 5 of the First\nSchedule