DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, **appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar**

144B of the Act. It is also claimed that no personal hearing was allowed by the ld.CIT(A) despite request. Thus, the proceedings are bad in law. It is further stated that the adjustment made by CPC was wrongly upheld by the ld.CIT(A).However, in the course of hearing before this Bench, the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee

ANSHUL SPECIALTY MOLECULES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaranshul Speciality Dcit Circle Molecules Private 1(1)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhawani, Flexcel Park, „C‟ Wing, S.V. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Nr. 24 Karat Multiplex, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai- 400102 Pan/Gir No. Aabca4003H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri H. N. Motiwala, Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

depreciation of Rs. 1,22,44,409/-, added the same to the income of the assessee, and completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

144B without complying with the provisions of Section 144C is bad in law and liable to be quashed Deduction u/s 10AA of the Act in respect of Refinery SEZ 3. erred in not adjudicating the ground that Refinery unit in Jamnagar SEZ ('Refinery SEZ') commenced manufacturing activity in FY 2009-10 relevant to AY 2010-11 (being the 1st year

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailaditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Tower 1, Jupiter Mill Compound, 17Th Floor, One World Center, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400013 Pan : Aaacb6134D V/S

depreciation and development rebate.  Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research institutions or company also qualifies for deduction.  In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section.  Section 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects, which constitute

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

depreciation and development rebate.\n• Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and\nknowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal\nhusbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research institutions or\ncompany also qualifies for deduction.\n• In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section.\n• Section 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

144B of the Act. It is also claimed\nthat no personal hearing was allowed by the ld.CIT(A) despite request. Thus, the\nproceedings are bad in law. It is further stated that the adjustment made by CPC\nwas wrongly upheld by the ld.CIT(A).However, in the course of hearing before\nthis Bench, the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

144B of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2022. During following additions and disallowances: i. Disallowance of deduction under section 80G The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had incurred Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure amounting to Rs. 21,06,00,000/- and claimed deduction under section 80G of Rs. 10,53,00,000/- in respect of donations made to Reliance Foundation

VIACOM 18, MEDIA PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 144B of the Act on 26/09/2022 determining total loss at (-) 281,32,98,884/- after making variations proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. 2.2 Subsequently, the learned PCIT called for the assessment records and after examination, he was of the view that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 08.09.2022, wherein the Assessing Officer accepted the returned 08.09.2022, wherein the Assessing Officer accepted the returned 08.09.2022, wherein the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciable asset\nSale Proceed of Ashutosh Flat\nLess: Transfer Fees Paid to Society\nLess: Brokerage Paid\nNet Consideration\nLess: Opening WDV of block of asset of Flat\nShort term capital gains\nGross Total Income\nDeduction under Chapter VI-A\nLess Deduction under section 80JJAA\nTOTAL TAXABLE INCOME\nSAY

DIWANTHAM TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUBMAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Diwantham Tollway Private Limited Pcit – 6, Mumbai Unit No. 603B, 6Th Floor, Godrej Bkkc, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Plot No. C-68, G Block, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aagcd6193G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

144B dated 29.09.2022. The assessment order was revised by ld. PCIT by invoking his jurisdiction under section 263. The ld. PCIT in para 2 of his order recorded that objections were raised by revenue audit and that assessment record was examined. The ld. PCIT issued show cause notice under section 263 dated 20.02.2025 as recorded in para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LUBRIZOL INDIA PVT LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd Income-Tax-3(4), Mumbai 9/3, Lubrizol India Private Limited- 5Th Room No.559, Floor, Plant, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate Naka, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Thane- Mumbai-400 020 400 705 Pan: Aaacl0126H Appellant Respondent

section 144B of the Act, date of order 29/03/2022. 2. The revenue has taken the following grounds:- "i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CITIA) was right in deleting the disallowance made by AO in respect of additional depreciation

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

depreciation pertaining to the Demerged Undertaking afresh as per the provisions contained in Section 72A(4) of the Act. ITA No. 502/Mum/2024, ITA No.302/Mum/2024 ITA No.556/Mum/2024 & ITA No. 557/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 All rights in contention of Assessee in relation to the aforesaid claim are left open. In terms of aforesaid, Ground No.4 and 5 raised

TRENT LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

section 144B of the Act on 09.08.2021. 3. One of the issues examined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order relates to the claim of depreciation

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation on the aforesaid intangibles at the prescribed rate under section 32 of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 17/08/2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

depreciation in the MAT computation. 35.3 The learned PCIT erred in not appreciating that as there has been no prejudice to the revenue, the said issue is outside the purview of section 263." 03. Brief facts of the case show that i. Assessee is a largest public sector bank, filed its return of income on 27th November, 2019, declaring income

ANUNTA TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailanunta Technology Management Services Ltd., Level – 2, Block – 6, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Goregaon East, S.O. Mumbai ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aakca6159M V/S Dcit – 4(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai Assessee By : Shri K.K. Ved Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in section 32, therefore, the parliament has used expression "any expenditure" in section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in section 37 made in the circumstances of a particular case, covers an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

DCIT-14.1.1, MUMBAI vs. AMCOR FLEXIBLES INDIA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

depreciation on goodwill of Rs. 2,37,83,195 should not be disallowed. In response to the same, the assessee filed its detailed submission vide letter dated 15 May 2023. However, the Ld. AO from National Faceless Assessment Centre passed a reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B