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

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this 16 Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani ITA No.7282 to 7285/Mum/2010 Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analysed it clearly

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

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this 16 Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani ITA No.7282 to 7285/Mum/2010 Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analysed it clearly

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

depreciation. 17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to state that there is any legal infirmity in the impugned order made by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. In the absence of any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.” Dinesh S. Jain

PUSHPAK AUXICHEM P. LTD,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(3), KALYAN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-1(3), बनाम/ 241/Business-2, Kasturi Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, Vs. Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Manpada Wayle Nagar, Road, Dombivali (East), Khadak Pada, Thane-421201 Kalyan-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

depreciation. 17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to state that there is any legal infirmity in the impugned order made by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. In the absence of any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.” 5.4. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court

DCIT CIR.7(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. PJL CLOTHING INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010 - 2011 Dcit Circle 7(3)(1) Pjl Clothing India Ltd., Mumbai बनाम/ Unit No.19, Shree Madhu Estate, Pandurang Budhakar Vs. Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2782R

depreciation. 17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to state that there is any legal infirmity in the impugned order made by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. In the absence of any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.” 3.6. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

depreciation. 17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to state that there is any legal infirmity in 52 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd the impugned order made by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. In the absence of any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

depreciation. 17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to state that there is any legal infirmity in 52 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd the impugned order made by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. In the absence of any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed

SYNCHEM CHEMICALS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation is allowed. 13.2. We find that revaluation by the partnership firm of its capital asset was an unilateral act yielding notional profits and not real profits. Accordingly, the amounts received thereon by the assessee from the partnership firm cannot contain any element of income. In such scenario, the same ought to be construed only as a capital receipt