SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

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

section 32(2) of the Act for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation to\nany subsequent year. The Apex Court in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.)\nLtd. [1966]59ITR555(SC) has held that unabsorbed depreciation of past years\nhad to be added to depreciation of the current year and the aggregate\nunabsorbed and current year's depreciation

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

section 149, that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and that the reopening was based on verification and roving enquiries. On merits, the assessee reiterated its submissions regarding allowability of depreciation

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

149 ITR 640 (Mad) there was a change in constitution of the firm. It was in this context, the hon'ble High Court held that assesse is not entitled to claim depreciation on revalued figure. As there is not change in constitution but a sucession of a firm by a company, the said decision is not applicable to the facts

JAY MA DURGA BUILDTECH P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Jay Maa Durga Buildtech The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited (Merged With Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Lodha Construction Private Room No. 655, Aayakar Limited) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcj7826P

149, section 151 and section 153 of the Act made it clear that provisions of these sections are not made applicable to the assessments covered by the provisions of section 153A or 153C of the Act. He explained that under the provisions of section 147 of the Act, the AO is having power to re-open the assessment

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

Depreciation. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said disallowance made by the Ld. A.O. is incorrect and invalid and ought to be deleted. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A. O. erred in making an addition

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

depreciation on\ngoodwill, distribution network and customer relations under section 32 of\nthe Act. As a result, grounds no.3, 4 and 5 raised in assessee's appeal are\nallowed.\n41. Grounds no.6 and 7 pertaining to the adjustment made under section\n143(1) of the Act were not pressed in view of the Tribunal's order in the\nappeal arising

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

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

depreciation on\ngoodwill, distribution network and customer relations under section 32 of\nthe Act. As a result, grounds no.3, 4 and 5 raised in assessee's appeal are\nallowed.\n41. Grounds no.6 and 7 pertaining to the adjustment made under section\n143(1) of the Act were not pressed in view of the Tribunal's order in the\nappeal arising

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

depreciable asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Even otherwise, this issue is concluded Even otherwise, this issue is concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities by the decision

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

149, it was observed that 'the panchnama is merely a record of what a panch sees'. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court in the case of Valibhai Omarji v. State AIR 1963 Guj 145 noted that 'a Panchanama is essentially a document recording certain things which occur in the presence of Panchas and which are seen and heard by them.' Again

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

149, it was observed that 'the panchnama is merely a record of what a panch sees'. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court in the case of Valibhai Omarji v. State AIR 1963 Guj 145 noted that 'a Panchanama is essentially a document recording certain things which occur in the presence of Panchas and which are seen and heard by them.' Again

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

149, it was observed that 'the panchnama is merely a record of what a panch sees'. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court in the case of Valibhai Omarji v. State AIR 1963 Guj 145 noted that 'a Panchanama is essentially a document recording certain things which occur in the presence of Panchas and which are seen and heard by them.' Again

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesses in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

depreciation and interest. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority and the CIT(A)-7, Mumbai, vide his order dated 16-05-2008 deleted all additions made by the AO. In further appeal before ITAT by the department, the ITAT, vide its order dated 30-04-2010 upheld the order of CIT(A). Subsequently

EBRAHIM ESSA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-9(2)(4), MUMBAI, 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 Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ito-9(2)(4), 115 Dathawala Wstate, Sv Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jogeshwari West, 400 102. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 4720 E Appellant Respondent

depreciation respectively totaling to Rs.8,75,400/ totaling to Rs.8,75,400/-. Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ebrahim Essa Developers Pvt. Ltd. 3 2.1 Subsequently, in view of receipt ubsequently, in view of receipt of information from the rmation from the Investigation Wing that assessee obtained bogus accommodation Investigation Wing that assessee obtained bogus accommodation Investigation Wing that assessee obtained

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

149 of the Act. 1.6 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating 1.6 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating 1.6 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the reassessment ord the reassessment order was without jurisdiction, illegal

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

149 of the Act. 1.6 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating 1.6 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating 1.6 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the reassessment ord the reassessment order was without jurisdiction, illegal