DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

139 or in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) or section nse to a notice issued under section 142(1) or section nse to a notice issued under section 142(1) or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

139(3) of the IT Act apply only to business loss and do not cover\nthe amount of unabsorbed depreciation which is treated as depreciation of\ncurrent year as per section

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any \nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment \nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections \n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : \n\n Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) \nof section 143 or this section has been made for the \nrelevant assessment year, no action

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any \nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment \nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections \n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : \n\n Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) \nof section 143 or this section has been made for the \nrelevant assessment year, no action

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

depreciation of INR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. “3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs. 1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1)(2), BANGALURU

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm &\Nms Padmavathy S, Am\Ni.T.A. No. 915/Mum/2017\N(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\Nhewlett Packard Financial\Nservices (India) Pvt. Ltd.,\N24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main\Nroad, Adugodi, Bangalore-560030.\Npan: Aabcc5967C\Nappellant)\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Nacit, Circle-2(1)(2),\Naayakar Bhavan,\Nvs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020.\N:\N:\N:\N:\Nrespondent)\Nshri Percy Pardiwala &\Nmr. Ninad Patade, Ar\Nshri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr\N22.09.2025\N21.10.2025\Norder\Nper Padmavathy S, Am:\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] Passed Under Section 250 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 25.10.2016 For Assessment Years (Ay)\N2011-12. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:\N(I) Disallowance Of Claim Of Depreciation On \"Hp Indigo Digital Press\Nprinter\" @ 60% - Ground No. 1.1 To 1.7\N(Ii) Treatment Of Ceased Liability As Income U/S 41 - Ground No. 2.1 To\N2.9\N(Iii) Disallowance Of Set Off Of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Ground\Nno. 3.1 To 3.9\N(Iv) Disallowance Of Provision For Tds Certificates & Addition To\Nbook Profits U/S.115Jb - Ground No.

depreciation the law does not provide that the return of income is\nrequired to be filed within the due dates specified under section 139. In this regard\nour attention was drawn to provisions of section 80 and section 139(3

GILBARCO VEEDER,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CIR 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

3) of section 139 provides that any person who has sustained a loss and claims that the loss should be carried forward would file a return of loss within the time prescribed under sub-section (1) and thereupon all the provisions of the Act shall apply as if it was a return under sub-section (1) of section 139

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

139, if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an in-appropriate claim has been made by the assessee in the return, before sending the intimation under section 143(1) he can make such inquiry and if he is satisfied in that inquiry about the inappropriate claim of the assessee, he can proceed in terms of sub-section

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

AUTO FINANCE ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.259/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Auto Finance Enterprises Acit-Circle 12(3) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 41, Nariman Bhavan, 221, Nariman Point, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafa-2325-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

3) of section 74A." 12.1 In the instant case, there is no doubt that the assessee had filed a return under section 139 of the Act within the prescribed time. It is also not disputed that a loss had been claimed even though the same had been claimed to the extent of Rs. 90 and that too as a capital

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

depreciation. Looking to the nature of the advantage which the assessee obtained in a commercial sense, expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West 12 ITA NO. 803 & 850/MUM/2009