M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

Section 47(xiii), depreciation has been allowed on revalued amount: a) DCIT v Suyash Laboratories Ltd (2016) 65 taxmann.com 217(Mum)(Trib) follow Gujrat High Court 255 ITR 26 Pg. No. 100-105 b) Modular Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2010) 131

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this 16 Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani ITA No.7282 to 7285/Mum/2010 Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analysed it clearly

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this 16 Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani ITA No.7282 to 7285/Mum/2010 Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analysed it clearly

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this 16 Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani ITA No.7282 to 7285/Mum/2010 Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analysed it clearly

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this 16 Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani ITA No.7282 to 7285/Mum/2010 Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analysed it clearly

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act restricts aggregate deduction both by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect in a by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect particular year where there is no aggregate r ar where there is no aggregate reduction. The 5 eduction

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act restricts aggregate deduction both by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect in a by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect particular year where there is no aggregate r ar where there is no aggregate reduction. The 5 eduction

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act restricts aggregate deduction both by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect in a by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect particular year where there is no aggregate r ar where there is no aggregate reduction. The 5 eduction

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act restricts aggregate deduction both by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect in a by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect by the predecessor and the successor and has no effect particular year where there is no aggregate r ar where there is no aggregate reduction. The 5 eduction

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation which would\nhave been available to the amalgamating company, had there not been any\namalgamation. Indeed there was no entry in the books of the\ntransferor/amalgamating company for the intangible assets/goodwill being\nself-generated assets. However, we note that all the relevant provisions of\nthe Act as discussed above deal with respect to the assets available/recorded\nin the books

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 which would\nhave been available to the amalgamating company, had there not been any\namalgamation. Indeed there was no entry in the books of the\ntransferor/amalgamating company for the intangible assets/goodwill being\nself-generated assets. However, we note that all the relevant provisions of\nthe Act as discussed above deal with respect to the assets available/recorded\nin the books

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

section 131 or 133(6) of the Act. The assessee has also\ncontended that no cross-examination of the parties was allowed before\ntaking adverse view of the matter.\n6.1 In view of all the above aspects of the case, we are of the\nconsidered view that it would be in the fitness of things to set aside the\nmatter

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 131 or 133(6) of the Act. The assessee has also\ncontended that no cross-examination of the parties was allowed before\ntaking adverse view of the matter.\n6.1 In view of all the above aspects of the case, we are of the\nconsidered view that it would be in the fitness of things to set aside the\nmatter

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

section 115JB of the Act is not applicable.” 4. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT called for the records and after examination of the records, he was of the view that assessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of ITA Nos. 895 & 296/M/2021

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

section 115JB of the Act is not applicable.” 4. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT called for the records and after examination of the records, he was of the view that assessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of ITA Nos. 895 & 296/M/2021

ITO 7(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. SUNSHIELD CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3346/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

section 115JB of the Act, the lower of brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation is required to be allowed as deduction from book profit. Since in these years there was no business loss being positive income and therefore in aggregate the positive income of these years was not required to be considered. Hence, the CIT(A) directed

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the payments made for obtaining membership is not allowable expenditure and the payments made towards annual renewal fees and expenditure incurred at Clubs for the business purpose is allowable expenditure, but not the payment made for obtaining membership. The AO further held

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the payments made for obtaining membership is not allowable expenditure and the payments made towards annual renewal fees and expenditure incurred at Clubs for the business purpose is allowable expenditure, but not the payment made for obtaining membership. The AO further held