GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

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

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

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

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

152 of the paper book) and March 30, 2015 (relevant pages 155 and 156 of the paper book) filed by the Appellant wherein details regarding acquisition of right to use 3G spectrum, the cost of such acquisition, additions made in the books of accounts, break-up of the cost for tax purposes, claim of depreciation under section

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**

depreciable assets has categorically held that the provisions of section 50C are equally applicable to asset forming a block of asset as well. This finding is contrary to the contentions of the assessee as stated above paras. This decision though given in the context of section 50 of the Act,has not been appreciated either the assessee or the Revenue

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.33,33,614, incurred due to conversion at the exchange rate on 31/03/2003. Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, following the decisions of his predecessor–in–office rendered in assessee‟s own case

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.33,33,614, incurred due to conversion at the exchange rate on 31/03/2003. Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, following the decisions of his predecessor–in–office rendered in assessee‟s own case

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 16. Apropos the issue of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer noticed from the records that assessee had earned dividend of Rs.3,07,25,905/- on investments in shares and units of mutual funds on total investments of Rs.33.74 crores which included

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PVT. LTD,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

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

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and the Gati Ltd. The ground Nos. 2.1 and 2.2 of the appeal are accordingly allowed. 12. The ground Nos. 3.1 and 3.3 of the appeal of the assessee relates to deduction disallowed of Rs.53

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

depreciation on assets for FY 2008-09, and held that first year of manufacturing was in financial year 2008-09 relevant to assessment year 2009-10. 7.3 In background of above factual observations, the grounds raised by the Revenue challenging invalidation of reassessment proceedings are adjudicated below. 7.4 Firstly, the Revenue has challenged the finding of ld CIT(A) that

ASIT C.MEHTA INVESTMENT INTERMEDIATES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 449/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2004-05) Asit C. Mehta Investment Intermediates P. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Rd. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 072. Pan: Aaaca-5009-N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Cir.4(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

152(Mum). In assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s claim of unabsorbed depreciation by adopting aggregation approach. The Assessing Officer held that there is no loss in the books of account for Financial Year 2002-03, therefore, the deduction claimed in computation of book profits under section

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

152 (Mad), wherein the facts are different because survey was conducted in the case of M/s Elegant Construction & Interiors Ltd., in connection to the search conducted in case of the assessee, wherein during search, incriminating material was found showing cash payment received by M/s. Elegant Constructions & Interior Ltd. from the assessee. In that context the Hon'ble Apex Court observed/held

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

152 (Mad), wherein the facts are different because survey was conducted in the case of M/s Elegant Construction & Interiors Ltd., in connection to the search conducted in case of the assessee, wherein during search, incriminating material was found showing cash payment received by M/s. Elegant Constructions & Interior Ltd. from the assessee. In that context the Hon'ble Apex Court observed/held

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

152 (Mad), wherein the facts are different because survey was conducted in the case of M/s Elegant Construction & Interiors Ltd., in connection to the search conducted in case of the assessee, wherein during search, incriminating material was found showing cash payment received by M/s. Elegant Constructions & Interior Ltd. from the assessee. In that context the Hon'ble Apex Court observed/held

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

152 (Mad), wherein the facts are different because survey was conducted in the case of M/s Elegant Construction & Interiors Ltd., in connection to the search conducted in case of the assessee, wherein during search, incriminating material was found showing cash payment received by M/s. Elegant Constructions & Interior Ltd. from the assessee. In that context the Hon'ble Apex Court observed/held

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

152/- made under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed. Ground No.3 to 8 11. Ground No.3 to 8 raised by the Assessee pertain to the addition of INR.1,00,19,00,000/- made in respect of Delayed Payment Charges. 11.1. During the assessment

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

152/- made under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed. Ground No.3 to 8 11. Ground No.3 to 8 raised by the Assessee pertain to the addition of INR.1,00,19,00,000/- made in respect of Delayed Payment Charges. 11.1. During the assessment

SUVINO TELEVIDEO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

depreciation pertaining to A.\nY. 1997-98 to 2001-02 can be carry forward and adjusted after the\nlapse of 8 years in view of Section 32(2) of the Act as mandate by\nthe Finance Act, 2001.\n\nd. Dr. Willmar Schwable India (P.) Ltd. υς. Additional\nCommissioner of Income-tax (High Court of Delhi) [2023] 152

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MUMBAI.50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was not selected for scrutiny assessment. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act on 28.02.2018, declaring a loss of Rs.395,96,32,472/-, wherein an enhanced claim of depreciation, including on goodwill, was made. The revised return of income captured