ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. MAANRAJ TRADING P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 3414/Mum/2009 : (A.Y : 2005-06) M/S Maanraj Trading Pvt. Ltd Vs. Acit Cir 6(3) Poonam Chambers, 101E, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 018 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaacm0150 Mumbai – 400 020

72A of the Companies Act, therefore, the question of deemed dividend does not arise. The Ld. DR submits that not convinced with the reply, the Assessing Officer has not accepted that there is a demerger in view of the provisions of Section 2(19AA) of the Act and therefore, there is no demerger. The Ld. DR submits that on appeal

MAANRAJ TRADING P. LTD ( UNDERLIQUIDATION),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 3414/Mum/2009 : (A.Y : 2005-06) M/S Maanraj Trading Pvt. Ltd Vs. Acit Cir 6(3) Poonam Chambers, 101E, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 018 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaacm0150 Mumbai – 400 020

72A of the Companies Act, therefore, the question of deemed dividend does not arise. The Ld. DR submits that not convinced with the reply, the Assessing Officer has not accepted that there is a demerger in view of the provisions of Section 2(19AA) of the Act and therefore, there is no demerger. The Ld. DR submits that on appeal

DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI vs. NOCIL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit 1(2), Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Nocil Limited, Mafatlal House, 3Rd Floor, Ht Parekh Marg, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai -400 020 .... Respondent

Capital Gains and business income at NIL. Notably, in the assessment so finalised, set-off was given for the brought forward business losses of RS.1234.83 lacs and Rs.107.64 lacs pertaining to Assessment Years 1999-00 and 2000-01 respectively and also unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.141S.14 lacs pertaining to Assessment Year 1998-99, and (Assessment Year 2004-05) the balance

THE DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

72A(2) as applicable for A.Y.2003-04 are reproduced as under:- “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the accumulated loss shall not be set off or carried forward and the unabsorbed depreciation shall not be allowed in the assessment of the amalgamated company- (i) holds continuously for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation

KEVA FRGRANCES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 4 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

gains in the hands of amalgamating company on transfer of capital asset of amalgamating company in the scheme of amalgamation ii) Explanation 7 to Section 43(1): Actual cost of capital assets in the hands of amalgamated company to be same as in the hands of amalgamating company iii) Explanation 2 to Section 32(1): 'Written down value

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

72A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the intention of the legislature was that the property should include all assets pertaining to the undertaking. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that section

JUST DIAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

72A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the intention of the legislature was that the property should include all assets pertaining to the undertaking. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that section

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

72A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the intention of the legislature was that the property should include all assets pertaining to the undertaking. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that section

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

72A(2) as applicable for A.Y.2003-04 are reproduced as under:- “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the accumulated loss shall not be set off or carried forward and the unabsorbed depreciation shall not be allowed in the assessment of the amalgamated company- (i) holds continuously for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt\nfrom tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the\nTribunal upheld his order. On appeal:\nHeld, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided for\npayment of interest in respect thereof only on the dates specified therein at six\nmonthly

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

72A(2) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the same. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously relied on the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act to deny deduction of depreciation of Rs 4,38,18,551 in calculating

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt\nfrom tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the\nTribunal upheld his order. On appeal:\nHeld, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided for\npayment of interest in respect thereof only on the dates specified therein at six\nmonthly

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt\nfrom tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the\nTribunal upheld his order. On appeal:\nHeld, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided for\npayment of interest in respect thereof only on the dates specified therein at six\nmonthly

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains within article 14(4) of the DTAA and were, therefore, exempt\nfrom tax in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both additions and the\nTribunal upheld his order. On appeal:\nHeld, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the securities in this case expressly provided for\npayment of interest in respect thereof only on the dates specified therein at six\nmonthly

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed depreciation as not allowable for set off.” 12. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing consequential depreciation in respect of foreign currency loss of incurred during FY. 2004-05 on cancellation of forward exchange contract considered as capital expenditure

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed depreciation as not allowable for set off.” 12. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing consequential depreciation in respect of foreign currency loss of incurred during FY. 2004-05 on cancellation of forward exchange contract considered as capital expenditure

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed depreciation as not allowable for set off.” 12. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing consequential depreciation in respect of foreign currency loss of incurred during FY. 2004-05 on cancellation of forward exchange contract considered as capital expenditure

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

72A(2) were not satisfied rendering the unabsorbed depreciation as not allowable for set off.” 12. “On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing consequential depreciation in respect of foreign currency loss of incurred during FY. 2004-05 on cancellation of forward exchange contract considered as capital expenditure