DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Depreciation 30,458 Employees' remuneration & welfare benefits Employees' remuneration & welfare benefits 5,71,67,541 5,71,67,541 Legal & professional charges Legal & professional charges 1,33,37,144 1,33,37,144 Printing & Stationery Printing & Stationery 60,740 Rents, Rates & Taxes Rents, Rates & Taxes 3,52,594 3,52,594 Repairs & Maintenance Repairs & Maintenance

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Depreciation 30,458 Employees' remuneration & welfare benefits Employees' remuneration & welfare benefits 5,71,67,541 5,71,67,541 Legal & professional charges Legal & professional charges 1,33,37,144 1,33,37,144 Printing & Stationery Printing & Stationery 60,740 Rents, Rates & Taxes Rents, Rates & Taxes 3,52,594 3,52,594 Repairs & Maintenance Repairs & Maintenance

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions would render

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees medical benefit

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

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

depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees medical benefit

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii reciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption

INDIA MEDTRONIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodindia Medtronics Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Of Income-Tax-10(1)(1), Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Room No. 209, Vs. Ghatkopar Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra- 400093 Pan – Aaaci4227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Rajan R. Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2019

depreciation on the said „block of P a g e | 39 ITA No.7263/Mum/2018 AY. 2014-15 India Medtronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of income-tax-10(1)(1) asset‟ could not be disturbed, despite the fact that some of the assets forming part of such „block of asset‟ were no more used for the purpose of business. Our aforesaid

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

1 April, 2015 and will be applicable from Assessment Year 2015 2016 onwards. Similar amendment, simultaneously introduced through Section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, in respect of the deduction for depreciation in the case of charitable trusts, has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

10 Total value of Goodwill eligible for depreciation for AY 85,13,06,766 Total value of Goodwill eligible for depreciation for AY Total value of Goodwill eligible for depreciation for AY 2009-10 Less: Depreciation @ 25% for the AY under (21,28,26,691) Less: Depreciation @ 25% for the AY under Less: Depreciation @ 25% for the AY under consideration

KETAN BROTHERS DIAMONDS EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation on motor car.” 3. The first issue arising in present appeal is pertaining to disallowance of Rs.32,140, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

10,106/- passed under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act dated 12th February, 2019, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to lack of enquiry as per explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act. He set aside it and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to conduct the requisite enquiries

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

depreciation allowance has been computed. Explanation 2.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not neces-sarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of this section." 16. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of the bank. Accordingly, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction of an amount lower of the provision made for bad and doubtful debts or the amount calculated as per the prescribed methodology. As per the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, deduction under section

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

depreciation of INR 5,56,53,581 on\ncustomer relations.\n5.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)\nerred in upholding the contention of the Assessing Officer that the Appellant\nhas not incurred any cost for acquiring customer relations in the scheme of\nmerger.\n6. Upholding the adjustments made under section

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

1) of section 32, "depreciation actually allowed" shall not include depreciation allowed under sub- clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 10

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

1) of section 32, "depreciation actually allowed" shall not include depreciation allowed under sub- clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 10

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciation on value of investments and re- computation of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii), in respect of provisions of bad debts, as well as bad debt written off. 4. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT-2, Mumbai has issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to explain

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into