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 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

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

29. In ground no.6, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bad debt written–off. 30. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has debited an amount of ` 1683,69,54,466, on account of bad debt written–off under section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

depreciation and also capital expenditure viz addition to fixed assets in the computation of income which amounted to double deduction. (v)The appellant prays that the order of the A.O. should be restored and order of the CIT(A) should be set aside." 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid grounds raised by the revenue in the Group Trust case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

depreciation and also capital expenditure viz addition to fixed assets in the computation of income which amounted to double deduction. (v)The appellant prays that the order of the A.O. should be restored and order of the CIT(A) should be set aside." 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid grounds raised by the revenue in the Group Trust case

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

depreciation and also capital expenditure viz addition to fixed assets in the computation of income which amounted to double deduction. (v)The appellant prays that the order of the A.O. should be restored and order of the CIT(A) should be set aside." 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid grounds raised by the revenue in the Group Trust case

DCIT CIR 23(3), MUMBAI vs. SHIRISH M DALVI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

29 and 102 31 to 35 -- of NABARD report about Mango Plantation Economies 9. Copy of report on sustaining & 36 to 39 -- Expanding the Horticulture revolution in Maharashtra 10. Google Photos of Dushmi Land from 40 to 42 -- Shirish M. Dalvi 11. Copy of relevant sections of Bombay 43 to 46, -- Tenancy & Agricultural Lands

SHIRISH M DALVI,KALYAN vs. DCIT CIR 29(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

29 and 102 31 to 35 -- of NABARD report about Mango Plantation Economies 9. Copy of report on sustaining & 36 to 39 -- Expanding the Horticulture revolution in Maharashtra 10. Google Photos of Dushmi Land from 40 to 42 -- Shirish M. Dalvi 11. Copy of relevant sections of Bombay 43 to 46, -- Tenancy & Agricultural Lands

DCIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJILAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year's assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

M/S. ICICI BANK LTD ( ERSTWHILE ICICI LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

depreciation @ 10% on the interest amount of INR 14,47,986/-. 27. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 28. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the interest expenditure was allowable under Section ITA. No. 7589 & 7508/Mum/2007 Assessment Year: 2001-02 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the same was incurred

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

10 Tata Communications Limited vs. Pr. CIT off against long term capital loss. This judgment again clarifies the interpretation of section 50 and concept of a long term capital asset. 29. Again in another judgment Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Pursarth Trading Co. Pvt Ltd in Income Tax appeal no. 123 of 2013 judgment an order dated