THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD,ORRISSA vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

Section- 32(1)(ii) and the appellant may be granted the depreciation treating the said right as intangible right at the applicable rate. The appellant prays that the appellant be granted depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THIRVANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

Section- 32(1)(ii) and the appellant may be granted the depreciation treating the said right as intangible right at the applicable rate. The appellant prays that the appellant be granted depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

M/S ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138

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, disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.33,33,614, incurred due to conversion at the exchange rate on 31/03/2003. Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, following the decisions of his predecessor–in–office rendered in assessee‟s own case

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, disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.33,33,614, incurred due to conversion at the exchange rate on 31/03/2003. Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, following the decisions of his predecessor–in–office rendered in assessee‟s own case

HAZARIBAGH RANCHI EXPRESSWAY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

depreciation is\nallowable on the right to collect toll on the roads developed by the assessee\non BOT basis by considering the same as an intangible asset. We find that\nthe Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court inCIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf,\nreported in [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom.), held that an authority like an\nIncome-tax Tribunal acting anywhere

HAZARIBAGH RANCHI EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIR-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

depreciation is\nallowable on the right to collect toll on the roads developed by the assessee\non BOT basis by considering the same as an intangible asset. We find that\nthe Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court inCIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf,\nPage | 16\nHazaribagh Ranchi Expressway Ltd.\nITA no.3787 & 3788/Mum/2023\nreported in [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom.), held that

ABHIDEEP CHEMICALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Abhideep Chemicals Vs. Pr Cit – 14, Mumbai – 400 Pvt. Ltd., 503, Keshava Bkc 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5336N Appellant) .. Respondent)

138 TTJ 129 (Mumbai SB) decided on 25th April, 2011 it has been held that section 50 C is applicable to the depreciable

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

Depreciation of investments of Rs.46,19,11,355. (d) Deduction allowed under section 36(1) (viia) of Rs. 159,22,24,604. (e) Excess grant of deduction under section 36(1) (viia) Rs.12,23,01,710. (f) Deduction under section 36(1) (viii) Rs. 138

M/S NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD vs. ADDLCIT RG - 7(1),

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Income - Tax Range-7(1), (Earlier Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T, Circle-7 (1), M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. 452, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013

section 32 of the Act. In our view the above observation does not support the case made out by the A.O. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee”. 13. As the issues involved in the year under consideration as raised in ground No. 3 & 4 of the Revenue