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

section 139(5) on discovery of any omission or wrong statement. The assessee has explained before the authorities below that it has claimed this depreciation

AKRY ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

5) 12 Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., could not alter the character of the original return, nor could it retrospectively convert such return into one under section 139(3). 15. The distinction, however, between Wipro Limited and the present case is stark and material. The assessee before us has not sought to alter the character of its return or transform

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 32(2) of the IT Act and consequently they ought\nto have held that unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 is allowable as a\ndeduction against current year

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

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (INT. TAXATION) - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

5 of Heads Agreement, SET was permitted to reconfigure, combined and/or package the Feed for the purpose of exploiting the „Rights‟ (i.e. the right to transmit, broadcast, exhibit, perform, include in cable programmes, and/or otherwise distribute or make available to the public, any moving visual and/or audiovisual representations including the Feed, Highlights Package and any recordings by specified means

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT IT-3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

5 of Heads Agreement, SET was permitted to reconfigure, combined and/or package the Feed for the purpose of exploiting the „Rights‟ (i.e. the right to transmit, broadcast, exhibit, perform, include in cable programmes, and/or otherwise distribute or make available to the public, any moving visual and/or audiovisual representations including the Feed, Highlights Package and any recordings by specified means

ADIT (IT)-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

5 of Heads Agreement, SET was permitted to reconfigure, combined and/or package the Feed for the purpose of exploiting the „Rights‟ (i.e. the right to transmit, broadcast, exhibit, perform, include in cable programmes, and/or otherwise distribute or make available to the public, any moving visual and/or audiovisual representations including the Feed, Highlights Package and any recordings by specified means

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(3) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MINDSPACE BUSINESS PARKS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

5) 22.03.2016 28.03.2018 Notice under section 143(2) of the 15.04.2016 29.07.2017 Act Date of search 30.11.2017 Notice under section 153A 01.08.2018 01.08.2018 15. Ld AR submitted that from the above table, it can be concluded that during the years under consideration, proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were initiated but the same were never completed on account

DY.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MINDSPACE BUSINESS PARKS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

5) 22.03.2016 28.03.2018 Notice under section 143(2) of the 15.04.2016 29.07.2017 Act Date of search 30.11.2017 Notice under section 153A 01.08.2018 01.08.2018 15. Ld AR submitted that from the above table, it can be concluded that during the years under consideration, proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were initiated but the same were never completed on account

M/S SUMINTER INDIA ORGANICS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed.” There is no dispute with respect to the conditions under section 115BAA(2) on the facts of this case; the dispute is confined to the furnishing of option, under section 115BAA(5

BAYER PHARMACEUTICALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 15(3), MUMBAI

In the result, whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed, that of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhbayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Bayer Polychem India Ltd.), Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (W) -400607 Pan: Aabcb 3852F ...... Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10(3), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020. .... Respondent The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10(3), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020. .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Pan: Aaccb 2271M ...Respondent Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Bayer Polychem India Ltd.), Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (W) -400607 Pan: Aabcb 3852F .... Appellant Vs. (Assessment Year 2004-05)

139(5) of the Income Tax, 1961. (Assessment Year 2004-05) 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's stand of not considering the rectification of error carried out in the computation of total income along with 3rd revised return, on account of provision for leave encashment

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. BAYER PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed, that of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhbayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Bayer Polychem India Ltd.), Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (W) -400607 Pan: Aabcb 3852F ...... Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10(3), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020. .... Respondent The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10(3), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020. .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Pan: Aaccb 2271M ...Respondent Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Bayer Polychem India Ltd.), Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (W) -400607 Pan: Aabcb 3852F .... Appellant Vs. (Assessment Year 2004-05)

139(5) of the Income Tax, 1961. (Assessment Year 2004-05) 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's stand of not considering the rectification of error carried out in the computation of total income along with 3rd revised return, on account of provision for leave encashment

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply unless the option is exercised by the person in the prescribed manner on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the returns of income for any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April

SAI SAMARTH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 , THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

5, was unfounded. 12. The first question involves interpretation of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For convenience, the relevant provision of the Act is reproduced below: "Section 271 (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that

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.

5 to section 32 which\nprovides the provisions of section 32(1) shall apply whether or not the assessee has\nclaimed the deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income. In\nother words even if the assessee has not claimed the depreciation allowance in the\nreturn of income the law deems it to have been claimed. In assessee

HINDUSTAN OIL EXPLORATION COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalhindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Special Range–1, Mumbai Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Circle–9(2)(1), Mumbai Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–9(2), Mumbai

139(5) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned Departmental Representative that the loss claimed in the revised return of income cannot be carried forward is not acceptable. As regards the allowability of expenditure claimed, the Revenue has failed to controvert the factual finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that, though, the expenditure pertained to the preceding assessment

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee." 8.11 For the reasons set out above therefore, we do not find any merit in the legal plea raised by the Ld. CIT, DR contesting validity of admission of additional claim