SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, 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 Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

143(1) of the Act and therefore, the decisions relied upon by the assessee were not applicable over the facts of the case. upon by the assessee were not applicable over the facts of the case. upon by the assessee were not applicable over the facts of the case. Shree Pushkar Foundation Shree Pu 4 4. We have heard rival

DSP FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -39(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dsp Finance Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc, 11Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre Nariman Bengaluru-560500. Vs. Point, Nariman Point, Dy. Cit-3(1)(1), Mumbai-400021. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacd 3069 K Appellant Respondent

depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,78,20,507 /; and to modify the a amounting to Rs. 1,78,20,507 /; and to modify the a amounting to Rs. 1,78,20,507 /; and to modify the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act accordance with the provisions of the Act 2. The relevant facts, as presented, are that

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

1 April 2017. The learned authorized representative submitted that the AO may be directed to grant credit of such TDS and set of the unabsorbed depreciation. 20. With respect to the additional ground of appeal for deduction under section 80 JJA of the act, assessee submitted that assessee is eligible for deduction of ₹ 9,10,21,434 which was originally

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

1 April 2017. The learned authorized representative submitted that the AO may be directed to grant credit of such TDS and set of the unabsorbed depreciation. 20. With respect to the additional ground of appeal for deduction under section 80 JJA of the act, assessee submitted that assessee is eligible for deduction of ₹ 9,10,21,434 which was originally

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

1 April 2017. The learned authorized representative submitted that the AO may be directed to grant credit of such TDS and set of the unabsorbed depreciation. 20. With respect to the additional ground of appeal for deduction under section 80 JJA of the act, assessee submitted that assessee is eligible for deduction of ₹ 9,10,21,434 which was originally

RISHABH METALS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CPC, DCIT -CIR 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerishabh Metals & Chemicals V. Dcit-Circle -1(3)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 4Th Floor, Eross Theatre Bldg Mumbai - 400020 Jt Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr2214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

143(1)(a)(iv). When the due date under explanation to section 36(1)(va) is judicially held to be decisive for determining the disallowance in the computation of total income, there is no good reason to proceed on the basis that payment having been made after this due date is indicative of the disallowance of expenditure in question. While

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, 52, 06,494. (g) Allowance of Long-term Capital loss to the extent of Rs.502

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(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 Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

143(3) read with 144C(13) read with section 254 of the Act denying 144C(13) read with section 254 of the Act denying 144C(13) read with section 254 of the Act denying the claim of depreciation on goodwill. the claim of depreciation on goodwill. 5. Before us the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted Before

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

depreciation.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 143

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

143(1) Addition on account of accretion to reserve treated as Ground No.6 (6.1 to 6.6) LTCG Disallowance of Finance Cost under section 37(1) of the Ground No.7 (7.1 to 7.3) Act Short grant of advance tax credit Ground No. 8 (8.1 & 8.2) Short grant of TDS credit Ground No. 9 (9.1 & 9.2) Incorrect calculation of interest under section

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

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

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

section 143 (3) of The Act was passed on 31/12/2016 determining total income at Rs. 4,949,621,342/- against the returned income as per the revised return of income of Rs. 1,939,382,340/-. 08. Assessee aggrieved with assessment Order, preferred appeal before the learned CIT –( A), who passed an appellate order on 24/1/2018. 09. The learned

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

section 143 (3) of The Act was passed on 31/12/2016 determining total income at Rs. 4,949,621,342/- against the returned income as per the revised return of income of Rs. 1,939,382,340/-. 08. Assessee aggrieved with assessment Order, preferred appeal before the learned CIT –( A), who passed an appellate order on 24/1/2018. 09. The learned

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. 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