KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

depreciation in respect of assets of kavesar factory without appreciating the fact that assessee has discontinued its pigment operation at kavesar from 1.4.1999 and the assets in question were never put to use?. 3. "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary". 3. The grounds of appeal raised

SUNSHIELD CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5045/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

depreciation and brought forward business losses of the Appellant. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to make addition on account of the provisions of Section 145A

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2) , MUMBAI

145A, else Section\n44B is an exercise in vacuum.\nf. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\ncase of Sedco Forex International Inc. v. CIT [2017] 87\ntaxmann.com 29 (SC) wherein it was held that if the amount\npaid or payable (whether in or out of India), or amount\nreceived or deemed to be received

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 3(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

145A with the introduction of GST regime in 2017; the Panel is of the considered opinion that the sums received on account of GST, paid by the customers in relation to shipping business are includible in the aggregate sums as per sub-section 44BB(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n7. The AO thereafter passed the final assessment order

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INT. TAXATION)RANGE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 4 of the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

145A(ii) of the ACT was\nrelevant. Whereas the appellant Is Oil and Gas company to whom special\nprovisions of section 44BB is applicable.\n\n4. Short Grant of Tax Deducted at source of Rs.40,03,123/-\nThe Id. AO erred has erred in granting credit of TDS of Rs.2,95,96,336/-\ninstead of Rs.3

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the adjustment

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the adjustment

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the adjustment

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the adjustment

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the adjustment

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

depreciation (including unabsorbed\ndepreciation of earlier years), the balancing charge/allowance and the\napportionment of overhead expenses. With a view to simplifying and\nrationalizing the assessments in such cases, the Finance Act, 1975 has\nmade a special provision in section 44B for computing profits and gains of\nshipping business in the case of non-residents. Under this provision, profits\nand gains

SEADRILL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation and brought forward loss shall be allowed to the assessee\nfor such previous year. ]\nExplanation. For the purposes of this section,—\n(i) \"plant\" includes ships, aircraft, vehicles, drilling units, scientific apparatus and\nequipment, used for the purposes of the said business;\n(ii) \"mineral oil\" includes petroleum and natural gas.\n7. For the purpose of receipt under section

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

145A, if there is any change in the closing stock at the end of the year then there must necessarily be a corresponding adjustment made in the opening stock of that year. It has been held that this would not amount to giving double benefit to the assessee and would be necessary to compute the true and correct profit

EXCEL CROP CARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

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

145A then the net increase in the profit for the year would have been a sum of ₹ 286 lakhs. Subsequently assessee has also submitted the revised computation of income as well as the explanation before the lower authorities that there is no impact on the taxable income of the assessee for the reason that the accounting for inclusive method

EXCEL CROP CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

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

145A then the net increase in the profit for the year would have been a sum of ₹ 286 lakhs. Subsequently assessee has also submitted the revised computation of income as well as the explanation before the lower authorities that there is no impact on the taxable income of the assessee for the reason that the accounting for inclusive method

DCIT CEN CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. EXCEL CROP CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

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

145A then the net increase in the profit for the year would have been a sum of ₹ 286 lakhs. Subsequently assessee has also submitted the revised computation of income as well as the explanation before the lower authorities that there is no impact on the taxable income of the assessee for the reason that the accounting for inclusive method

ACIT CC 6(3), MUMBAI vs. EXCEL CROP CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

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

145A then the net increase in the profit for the year would have been a sum of ₹ 286 lakhs. Subsequently assessee has also submitted the revised computation of income as well as the explanation before the lower authorities that there is no impact on the taxable income of the assessee for the reason that the accounting for inclusive method

DCIT CC 6(3), MUMBAI vs. EXCEL CROP CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

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

145A then the net increase in the profit for the year would have been a sum of ₹ 286 lakhs. Subsequently assessee has also submitted the revised computation of income as well as the explanation before the lower authorities that there is no impact on the taxable income of the assessee for the reason that the accounting for inclusive method

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MONSANTO INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation under section 32 and applying Explanation 5 to section 32 of the Act and offering resultant gain as taxable under section 50 would not arise. 11.5 On each of the aforesaid assets, it has been sought to be justified that the gain was a long term capital gain, on facts also. Regarding Distribution Network it has been explained that