APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAOGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

depreciation of Rs. 54,90,410/- was disallowed and notional rental income of Rs. 41,50,749/- was added, resulting in a total addition of Rs. 96,41,159/-. The assessment was thus completed at a total income of Rs. 12,31,86,729/- vide order dated 27.05.2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144B

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

depreciable immovable property, were also set aside to the AO for de novo consideration, allowing them for statistical purposes. Additional ground regarding Section 14A was dismissed. The departmental appeal (Ground 1) was allowed. Ground 2 (ESOP expenses) was upheld. Ground 3 (Interest Income under Section 43D) and Ground 4 (Broken Period Interest) were deleted. Grounds 5 & 6 (Provision for Standard

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

depreciation allowance or any other, allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2018-19\nand I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from service of this notice, a return in the\nprescribed form of the Assessment Year 2018-19.\n3.\nThis notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of the PCIT, Mumbai-1 accorded\non date

ORION INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-SIX CIRCLE FIFTEEN (ONE)(ONE)

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2018-19

depreciation to the extent of 25% on intangible asset recognized as “Goodwill” in its books, which aspect was not examined by the AO while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w. section 144B

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, on the\nfollowing grounds, each of which are without prejudice to one another.\n1. Disallowance of depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, on the\nfollowing grounds, each of which are without prejudice to one another.\n1. Disallowance of depreciation

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

HUHTAMAKI INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 6, MUMBAI

144B", "Section 263", "Section 28", "Section 32", "Section 234D" ], "issues": "Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 to revise the assessment order on grounds of inadequate inquiry by the AO, and whether the treatment of EPCG income, excess depreciation

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Section 144B of the Act assessing the total income of Assessee at INR.21,66,82,56,980/- computing the same as under:\nParticulars\nAmount\n(INR)\nAmount\n(INR)\nIncome as per Rule 2 of\nSchedule 1 of the Act\n1156,40,75,000\nLess: Exemption of pension business\nu/s 10(23AAB)\n162,73,27,000\nLess: Exemption of dividend

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

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, both the appeals preferred by the Revenue are\ndismissed

Section 143(3) read with\nSection 144B of the Act assessing the total income of Assessee at\nINR.21,66,82,56,980/- computing the same as under:\nParticulars\nAmount\n(INR)\nAmount\n(INR)\nIncome as per Rule 2 of\nSchedule 1 of the Act\n1156,40,75,000\nLess: Exemption of pension business\nu/s 10(23AAB)\n162

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL -JOINT -DEPUTY-ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- ITO, DELHI

depreciation pertaining to the Demerged Undertaking afresh as per the provisions contained in Section 72A(4) of the Act. 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 by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No.6 to Ground No.8 11. Ground No.6

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 (1) (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

depreciation pertaining to the Demerged Undertaking afresh as per the provisions contained in Section 72A(4) of the Act. 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 by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground No.6 to Ground No.8 Ground No.6

BBN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 15(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

depreciation claimed @15% amounting to\nRs.4,18,226/- was disallowed by the AO.\niii. An addition of Rs.13,98,209/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act.\niv. In the absence of explanation for negative cash balance, addition of\nRs.2,26,113/-.\n3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenged the same before the Id. CIT(A). The Id.\nCIT