WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

income claiming additional depreciation on windmill. The Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim of additional depreciation on windmill under

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

income claiming additional depreciation on windmill. The Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim of additional depreciation on windmill under

TCPL PACKAGING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharm/S Tcpl Packaging Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Empire Mills Complex, Tax- 8(3)(1) 414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai V. Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaact1406E (Appellant) (Respondent)

additional depreciation of Rs. 6,48,97,045/- in the return of income filed with Revenue, out of which additional

RBBR INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1456/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Rbbr Infrastructure Private Income Tax Officer-2(3)(1), Limited Room No. 581A, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ C/O. R. C. Reshamwala & Co., Mumbai Chartered Accountants, Vs. 323, Varma Chambers, 11, Homji Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 3931 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kirit Sanghvi & Shri Manish R. Reshamwah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 28.12.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Disallowance Of 2 M/S. Rbbr Infrastructure Private Limited Additional Depreciation Under Section 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act Of Rs.1,11,10,266/- Made By The Income-Tax Officer, On The Ground That The Assessee Has Started Production In The Succeeding Year, But Assets Were Purchased In The Previous Year & The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Profits When New Machinery & Plant Were Acquired.

additional depreciation, the assessee submitted before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as under: 4. ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION: 4.01 Additional

RAJBALI VISHWANATH MAURYA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

addition of Rs.28,87,373/- in the assessment order but only stated that this amount included in the survey declaration pertains to assessment year 2008-09, as can be seen from the computation of income. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

additional depreciation u/s 32 (1)(iia) amounting to Rs. 13,97,67,365/- on the eligible assets acquired during the Previous Year 2005-06 in computing total income

J M MHATRE INFRA PVT LTD.,PANVEL vs. ACIT, CC-1, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

additional disallowance of depreciation in the return of income filed u/s.153A and moreover this addition is not based on any incriminating

J M MHATRE INFRA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

additional disallowance of depreciation in the return of income filed u/s.153A and moreover this addition is not based on any incriminating

J M MHATRE INFRA PVT LTD.,PANVEL vs. ACIT, CC-1, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

additional disallowance of depreciation in the return of income filed u/s.153A and moreover this addition is not based on any incriminating

J M MHATRE INFRA PVT LTD.,,PANVEL vs. ACIT, CC-1 , THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

additional disallowance of depreciation in the return of income filed u/s.153A and moreover this addition is not based on any incriminating

ABOTT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

additions were made and the total income was determined at Rs. 84,04,90,479/- as against the returned income of Rs. 82,97,07,654/-. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 8th march, 2011 on the following reasons:- “(i) The assessee' has claimed depreciation

ABBOTT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

additions were made and the total income was determined at Rs. 84,04,90,479/- as against the returned income of Rs. 82,97,07,654/-. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 8th march, 2011 on the following reasons:- “(i) The assessee' has claimed depreciation

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

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

additional depreciation allowance claim in A.Y. 2008-09 in income tax Appeal No. CIT(A) 09 in income tax Appeal

EVEREST INDUSTIRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

additional depreciation is allowed only once. 29. We notice that the Kolkatta bench of Tribunal did not consider the third proviso inserted by Finance Act, 2015. Since the legislative intent in inserting sec.32(1)(iia) has been made clear by the third proviso inserted in sec. 32(1) by Finance Act 2015, we are unable to follow the view expressed

ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

Income tax whereas the same was granted by Commissioner* of Income tax and therefore the same was nullity in the eyes of law. Revenue took a stand mat sanction was granted by an officer superior in rank and therefore, no prejudice was caused to the assessee But Hon'blè High. Court did not agree with the contention of the Revenue

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Additional Commissioner of\nIncome-tax (Transfer Pricing) - 1(3), Mumbai is beyond jurisdiction -\nThe ground was not pressed\n1. Reference to the Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax (Transfer\nPricing) - 1(3), Mumbai and the transfer pricing order under section\n92CA(3) of the Act passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax\n(Transfer Pricing) - 1(3), Mumbai are without

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT - 10 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Income-tax Rules.\" \"Disallowance of alleged excess claim of depreciation on railway sidings and drainage Ground No. 64 For the purpose of computing the aforesaid alleged excess depreciation, the learned Additional

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MODISON METALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

additional depreciation of A.Y. 2008- 09 in AY 2009-10, even though as per section 32(2) of the IT Act only depreciation which cannot be set off against current years income