M/S. CRODA INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

156 (SC) wherein it was held that the expression ‘actually allowed’ is unambiguous and connotes the idea that the allowance was actually given effect to. 5.2. The assessee also submitted before the ld. PCIT that in para 2 of the show cause notice, the depreciation claimed on Goodwill is claimed to be Rs 620.13 lakhs, however, the actual depreciation claimed

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

156 crores, and if the Departmental Valuation Officer’s valuation is adopted, the goodwill works out to Rs. 289 crores. It was contended that in either situation, the existence of goodwill stands established and depreciation thereon is allowable in terms of section

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

156 crores, and if the Departmental Valuation Officer’s valuation is adopted, the goodwill works out to Rs. 289 crores. It was contended that in either situation, the existence of goodwill stands established and depreciation thereon is allowable in terms of section

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 10B of the Act by Finance Act 2000 w.e.f. 01-04-2001. The A.O. has held that while computing deduction u/s 10B of the Act brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of eligible unit are first required to be set off against the current year business profits of the eligible unit, before computing deduction

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

depreciation allowance has been computed. Explanation 2.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not neces-sarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of this section." 16. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income

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

156 Taxman 151 (Karn.) which was although rendered under the un-amended provision of Section 10B wherein Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held as under: “6. Section 10B is a special provision in respect of the newly established 100 per cent export oriented undertaking. It provides for a tax deduction on the turnover on account of 100 per cent

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

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of\nthe Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities\nLtd. [2012] 348 ITR 302.\n31. In support of the above alternative plea, the learned\nAuthorised Representative placed on record the working of\ngoodwill furnished before the learned CIT(A), based on both the\napproved valuer's report

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

156/- under Section 37(1) of the Act; and to modify the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act.” 3 The Supreme Industries Ltd. ITA Nos. 4673 & 4754/Mum/2014 4. Apropos issue of allowance of depreciation

ABHIDEEP CHEMICALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Abhideep Chemicals Vs. Pr Cit – 14, Mumbai – 400 Pvt. Ltd., 503, Keshava Bkc 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5336N Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciable assets. Ground Nos. 6 and 7 are against the Pr. CIT's action of not dealing with the Assessee's submissions that it is eligible for exemption under section 54 EC of the Act in respect of short term capital gains made under section 50 where the assets were held for more than three years. 2 M/s. Abhideep Chemicals

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

depreciation and amortization to arrive at average of total assets while disallowing the proportionate interest expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rule; ii. to consider total turnover excluding taxes and duties while computing deduction under section 80HHC from book profit. ITA Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 A.Ys

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

depreciation and amortization to arrive at average of total assets while disallowing the proportionate interest expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rule; ii. to consider total turnover excluding taxes and duties while computing deduction under section 80HHC from book profit. ITA Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 A.Ys

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

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

depreciation. Allocation of finance cost to undertakings eligible for deduction under section 80IB 18. During the year under consideration the assessee has incurred total finance charges of Rs. 2,29,74,317/- out of which an amount of Rs. 1,89,64,156

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

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

depreciation. Allocation of finance cost to undertakings eligible for deduction under section 80IB 18. During the year under consideration the assessee has incurred total finance charges of Rs. 2,29,74,317/- out of which an amount of Rs. 1,89,64,156

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

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

depreciation. Allocation of finance cost to undertakings eligible for deduction under section 80IB 18. During the year under consideration the assessee has incurred total finance charges of Rs. 2,29,74,317/- out of which an amount of Rs. 1,89,64,156

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

156. In determining the tax payable, the tax already paid has to be deducted. Hence, there can be no doubt that the expression “the amount of the tax, if any, payable by him” referred to in the first part of section 271(1)(a)(i) refers to the tax payable under a demand notice.” We have , therefore, to follow

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

depreciation u/s.32 is to be mandatorily allowed to the assessee as per Explanation-5 to Section 32 of the Act. In this regard, the language of the Section and the computation provisions mentioned in Rule 5 of first schedule to the Income Tax Act applicable for insurance companies cannot be given a literal interpretation as it manifestly produces unjust result