ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

depreciation is nil; or (iv) to (vi) [***] 11 M/s. Rockline Developers Pvt. Ltd. (vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing on and from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Sick Industrial

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

115B.” 68 I.T.A. No. 384 & 632/Mum/2015 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd 6.2 Following the earlier order of this Tribunal we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and decide this issue against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 7. Ground No.8 is regarding the claim of 100% depreciation

M/S GO AIRLINES (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 5 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,09,18,048/- on the alleged ground that the same has already been adjusted in the preceding years. 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that Rs. 17,09,18,048/- should be reduced from the net profits for arriving at the book profits under section 115B

DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are allowed in term of the above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation @ 100% on the value of assets costing less than Rs.20,000/-. The contention of the assessee is that since computation of profits and gains of the business of assessee, being in the business of life insurance, is in accordance with the provisions of section 44 of the Act, which over rides section

IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are allowed in term of the above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation @ 100% on the value of assets costing less than Rs.20,000/-. The contention of the assessee is that since computation of profits and gains of the business of assessee, being in the business of life insurance, is in accordance with the provisions of section 44 of the Act, which over rides section

DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are allowed in term of the above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation @ 100% on the value of assets costing less than Rs.20,000/-. The contention of the assessee is that since computation of profits and gains of the business of assessee, being in the business of life insurance, is in accordance with the provisions of section 44 of the Act, which over rides section

DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are allowed in term of the above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation @ 100% on the value of assets costing less than Rs.20,000/-. The contention of the assessee is that since computation of profits and gains of the business of assessee, being in the business of life insurance, is in accordance with the provisions of section 44 of the Act, which over rides section

IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are allowed in term of the above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation @ 100% on the value of assets costing less than Rs.20,000/-. The contention of the assessee is that since computation of profits and gains of the business of assessee, being in the business of life insurance, is in accordance with the provisions of section 44 of the Act, which over rides section

VIGHNAHARATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vighnaharata Trust Cit (Exemption) 1605/06 Hurrah, City Of Joy, Room No-617, 6Th Floor, Near Railway Station, Lbs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Mulund West, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 400 080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatv8040K Assessee By : Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2022

depreciation. The learned AO has set off. The anonymous donation with the deficit and assessed the total income at ₹ 2,182,231. Thus, the deficit shown by the assessee of ₹ 53,022,672 has been adjusted against the anonymous donation of 5,52,04,903. This is the glaring error in the assessment order. This is also prejudicial

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

depreciation brought forward and rework the Book Profit as defined in Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act, if considered necessary. However, in the order giving effect passed by the Assessing Officer he denied the benefit to the assessee. His observations in this regard were as under - "the assessee's petition for rectification based on the amendment had been

DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit Cir-6(3)(1) Icici Prudential Life बनाम/ R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Mumbai. Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci7351P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 44 r.w Rule 2 of the first Schedule that the legislature consciously omitted incorporation of the provision for insurance regulatory and development authority Act 1999 and Regulations made there under in Rule 2 of the First Schedule which refer only to un- amended insurance Act 1938 and regulations made there under, without appreciating the fact that this decision

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115B of the Act despite the fact that no adjustment adjustment adjustment other other other than than than the the the ones ones ones mentioned menti menti in Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115B of the Act despite the fact that no adjustment adjustment adjustment other other other than than than the the the ones ones ones mentioned menti menti in Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD, NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRLCE-1 , THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115B of the Act despite the fact that no adjustment adjustment adjustment other other other than than than the the the ones ones ones mentioned menti menti in Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRLCE-1, THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115B of the Act despite the fact that no adjustment adjustment adjustment other other other than than than the the the ones ones ones mentioned menti menti in Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 ,, THANE vs. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115B of the Act despite the fact that no adjustment adjustment adjustment other other other than than than the the the ones ones ones mentioned menti menti in Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1, THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

115B of the Act despite the fact that no adjustment adjustment adjustment other other other than than than the the the ones ones ones mentioned menti menti in Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Sec.115JB is permissible as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres

DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. IDBI FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-6(1) Idbi Federal Life 5Th Floor, Room No. Insurance Company Vs. 506, Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Tradeview, M.K. Road, Oasis Complex, Kamala Mumbai-400020. City, P.B. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aabci6227M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Idbi Federal Life Insurance Dcit-6(1) Company 5Th Floor, Room No. Vs. 1St Floor, Tradeview, Oasis 506, Aayakar Complex, Kamala City, P.B. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aabci6227M Appellant Respondent

Section 44 of the I.T Act r.w. Rule 2 of the First Schedule, without appreciating the fact that this decision of the ITAT was not accepted by the Department and appeal u/s. 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been filed. 5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case