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

depreciation and the goodwill which was disallowed by the AO. Further he has also relied on the following case laws: (i) Areva T & D India Ltd. vs DCIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 29(Delhi) (ii) Metrex Technologies Ltd. v ACIT (2012) 53 SOT 49 (Chn) (iii) SKS Micro Finance Ltd. Vs DCIT [2013] 37 taxman.com 192(Hyd ITAT) (iv) The Cosmos

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)

9 Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., precedes a valid revised return under section 139(5))—is a curable procedural defect, not a forfeiture of the underlying right. This construction avoids elevating form over substance and aligns with the computation-mechanics character of Chapter VI-A deductions. 12. Purpose of the 2020 amendment: Memorandum and its legal effect. The Memorandum to the Finance

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

Section 2(ff) of ICA defines „communication to the public‟ to, inter alia, mean making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public by any means of display or diffusion. Term „Broadcast‟ is defined in Section 2(dd) to mean communication to public by means of wireless diffusion or by wire and includes

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

Section 2(ff) of ICA defines „communication to the public‟ to, inter alia, mean making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public by any means of display or diffusion. Term „Broadcast‟ is defined in Section 2(dd) to mean communication to public by means of wireless diffusion or by wire and includes

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

Section 2(ff) of ICA defines „communication to the public‟ to, inter alia, mean making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public by any means of display or diffusion. Term „Broadcast‟ is defined in Section 2(dd) to mean communication to public by means of wireless diffusion or by wire and includes

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

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

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

9) of the Insurance Act?\nc)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred by upholding that the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not be attracted in the case of payment of re- insurance premium to foreign insurers and consequently

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

Depreciation @25%\n276,91,10,706/-\nvi) Disallowance of Abandoned\nproject/site expenses-as discussed in\npara-9\nIn Rs.\n127,32,60,974/-\n57,10,82,414/-\n625,62,21,192/-\n62,41,66,807/-\n15,03,41,540/-\n830,73,32,120/-\n85,70,422/-\n(vii) Disallowance of club entrance\nfees--as discussed in para

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

Depreciation @25%\n276,91,10,706/-\nvi) Disallowance of Abandoned\nproject/site expenses-as discussed in\npara-9\nIn Rs.\n127,32,60,974/-\n57,10,82,414/-\n625,62,21,192/-\n62,41,66,807/-\n15,03,41,540/-\n830,73,32,120/-\n85,70,422/-\n(vii) Disallowance of club entrance\nfees--as discussed in para

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

TATA DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Tata Digital Private Limited, Central Processing Centre/The Army & Navy Building 148, M G Deputy Commissioner Of Income Road, Opposite Kala Ghoda Fort Vs. Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai, Mumbai. Mumbai City-400 001 Pan No. Aahct 2205 N Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 14/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

depreciation depreciat ion allowance, allowance, unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research and unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research and unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research and unabsorbed capital expenditure on family planning unabsorbed capital expenditure on family planning unabsorbed capital expenditure on family planning (iii) such loss cannot be carried forward unless the return is (iii) such loss cannot

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

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

9) of the Insurance Act?\"\nc)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd.CIT(A) has erred by upholding that the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 would not be attracted in the case of payment of re-\ninsurance premium to foreign insurers and consequently

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how and section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure on eligible projects or schemes and section 35AD deals with deduction

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how and section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure on eligible projects or schemes and section 35AD deals with deduction

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

9) of the Insurance Act?\"\nc)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd.CIT(A) has erred by upholding that the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 would not be attracted in the case of payment of re-\ninsurance premium to foreign insurers and consequently

DCIT, CIR-8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, MUMBAI

section 139(5), “discovers any\nomission or wrong statement therein”. In this context we refer to the\ndecision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of PCIT Vs.\nTata Housing Development Company ltd. [2011] 45 SOT 9 (Mum) which\ndealt with the definition of the terms “omission”, “wrong statement” and\n“discover” as under:\ni. The word 'omission