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)

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 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

155 ITR 120 (SC) deals with section 80AA of the Income-tax Act. In 18 M/s Phoenix Mecano (I) Pvt. Ltd. the said judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that insofar as sub-section (1) of section 80M of the Income-tax Act is concerned, the deduction required to be allowed under that provision is liable to be calculated with

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Sections 391 to 394 of\nthe Companies Act, 1956. The scheme was approved by the hon'ble\nGujarat High Court on November 24, 2016, with the appointed date\nPage | 11\nITA No. 4821/Mum/2024\nA.Y. 2017-18\nAditya Birla Finance Limited\nbeing April 1, 2016, and became effective upon filing with the Registrar\nof Companies on December 31, 2016.Pursuant

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

depreciation of INR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. “3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs. 1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

depreciation of INR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. "3. 3.1. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs.1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses applying

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 does not arise. In view of the above three reasons, the proviso to section 31(1) of the Act is no applicability to the facts of the case of the assessee. 9.16 In this regard, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the coordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Thermo Fisher Scientific India

ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL PRINERS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Acit, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aacca6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation (CIT vs Ravi Industries Ltd. ) (1963) 49 ITR 145, 155 (Bom.). The 13 Hon’ble Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper & bonds Ltd. vs DCIT(2005) 272 ITR 165 (Mad.) held that under section

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the building expenses of Rs. 1,62,835/- are not liable to be taken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving at the real income of the assessee fro the assessment year

M/S. MARICO LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-35, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. However, the AO allowed 5% of the expenses to be claimed as a deduction considering the fact that the agreement is entered for a period of 20 years. For the year under consideration the AO followed its own order to make a disallowance of Rs. 26,26,804/-. On further appeal

THE ACIT CC-35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. However, the AO allowed 5% of the expenses to be claimed as a deduction considering the fact that the agreement is entered for a period of 20 years. For the year under consideration the AO followed its own order to make a disallowance of Rs. 26,26,804/-. On further appeal

MARICO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR-35,, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. However, the AO allowed 5% of the expenses to be claimed as a deduction considering the fact that the agreement is entered for a period of 20 years. For the year under consideration the AO followed its own order to make a disallowance of Rs. 26,26,804/-. On further appeal

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

155 of 2018 had considered an identical issue and after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) held that when a receipt is not in the JSW Steel Ltd. 8 ITA No.s 858/M/2011 & Ors. character of income as defined under section 2(24) of the I.T.Act, 1961, then

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

155 taxmann.com 374 (Mum-Trib)], wherein the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee‘s claim under section 10AA in the sixth year of deduction, on the ground that the conditions prescribed under the said provision were allegedly not satisfied. The Hon‘ble Tribunal, however, observed that the claim had been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the initial year, pursuant

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

depreciation thereon. The above grounds of objections are distinct and separate and without prejudice to each other. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee is an Indian company engaged in the business of development, manufacture and distribution of automobiles, primarily two-wheelers and three-wheelers, along with their parts and accessories. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return

ITO 21 (1) (5), MUMBAI vs. JAYA DEEPAK BHAVNANI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer-21(1)(5) Smt. Jaya Deepak Bhavnani Room No. 120, 1St Floor 407, Sun Industrial Estate Vs. Piramal Chambers Sunmil Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400012 Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaapb7618R Appellant Respondent

section 50 of the Act only provide that the any gain resulting from the depreciable assets shall be deemed to be capital gain arising from short term capital assets. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. 155

ADDL CIT -- 10(1), MUMBAI vs. AGC NETWORK LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVAYA GLOBAL CONNECT LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation in respect of any addition, renovation or extension to a building not owned by the assessee but holds lease hold rights, however, it will only apply if the expenditure is capital in nature. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s HEDE Consultancy