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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

section 32(1) of the Act. The purchase consideration was paid by\nthe amalgamating company by issuing shares to the shareholder\nof amalgamated company based on valuation report without involving\nany cash payments. The purchase consideration being more than the net\nassets transferred by the amalgamating company was treated\nas goodwill by the amalgamated company and the depreciation was\nclaimed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, AYAKAR BHAVAN vs. PIRAMAL GLASS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Asst. Cit-8(2)(1), Piramal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe Maharishi Karve Road, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcg 0093 R Appellant Respondent

190 filed on behalf of the assessee. 6.0 In ground No. 1, the Revenue is aggrieved with the finding of In ground No. 1, the Revenue is aggrieved with the finding of In ground No. 1, the Revenue is aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of depreciation @ 25% the Ld. CIT(A) deleting

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

190/-, on the basis of Form 3CL issued by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) with respect to the appellant's for R&D expenses. 2. Failed to appreciate that once R&D facility was approved by DSIR in No. 3CM, then the expenses incurred by the appellant ought to be allowed learned AO under section

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

190/-, on the basis of Form 3CL issued by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) with respect to the appellant's for R&D expenses. 2. Failed to appreciate that once R&D facility was approved by DSIR in No. 3CM, then the expenses incurred by the appellant ought to be allowed learned AO under section

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

190/-, on the basis of Form 3CL issued by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) with respect to the appellant's for R&D expenses. 2. Failed to appreciate that once R&D facility was approved by DSIR in No. 3CM, then the expenses incurred by the appellant ought to be allowed learned AO under section

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

190/-, on the basis of Form 3CL issued by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) with respect to the appellant's for R&D expenses. 2. Failed to appreciate that once R&D facility was approved by DSIR in No. 3CM, then the expenses incurred by the appellant ought to be allowed learned AO under section

M/S. DATAMATRIX TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5358/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2016-17) Datamatrix Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Acit 504, 5 Th Floor, Sai Arpan, P.G. Circle 9(3)(1), Vora Road, Next To P.G. Vora फनाभ/ Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, School, Mira Road (E), Thane- Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 401107 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacg4096M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Vipul Joshi, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri. V.Vidyadhar, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2021

Section 41(4) of the Act, the consideration received on transfer of depreciable assets was reduced from the opening WDV of the respective block of assets. After such reduction, none of the blocks ceased to exist and therefore only with reference to the resultant reduced WDV, the assessee was granted depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. In particular, our attention

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how and section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure on eligible projects or schemes and section 35AD deals with deduction

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how and section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure on eligible projects or schemes and section 35AD deals with deduction

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

190/- under section 69 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the submissions of the assessee by observing in Para 5.9.2 to 5.9.12 as under: - “5.9.2 The LAP, had elaborately discussed that the assessee in course of its business/ obtained from IL & FS Ltd (herein after known

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

190/- under section 69 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the submissions of the assessee by observing in Para 5.9.2 to 5.9.12 as under: - “5.9.2 The LAP, had elaborately discussed that the assessee in course of its business/ obtained from IL & FS Ltd (herein after known

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

190/- under section 69 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the submissions of the assessee by observing in Para 5.9.2 to 5.9.12 as under: - “5.9.2 The LAP, had elaborately discussed that the assessee in course of its business/ obtained from IL & FS Ltd (herein after known

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

190/- under section 69 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the submissions of the assessee by observing in Para 5.9.2 to 5.9.12 as under: - “5.9.2 The LAP, had elaborately discussed that the assessee in course of its business/ obtained from IL & FS Ltd (herein after known

DY.CIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.MARSHALL PRODUCE BROKERS CO.PVT.LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

190/-, added Rs.25,84,450/- under the head house property. 10. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO on account of deemed let out value computed under section 23(i) read with section 22 of the Act by observing and holding as under: “5.2.1 This ground relates to addition

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Corporate Finance Division) Central Circle 1(4), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Room No. 902, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg 4464B Dcit, M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Central Circle 1(4), (Corporate Finance Division) Room No. 902, A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Old Cgo Building, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai - 400030 Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agarwal & Respondent By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit(Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation. This ground is allowed.” 9. Facts being identical, respectfully following the decisions of the Coordinate Benches, we allow assessee’s claim. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition. This ground is allowed. 10. In Ground No.4, assessee has challenged disallowance of administrative expenses incurred in respect of retirement benefit trust. 11. Having considered rival submission, we find

M/S BAUL MSK INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the aforesaid issue is restored to the file of the A.O in terms of our aforesaid directions. The Ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Bul Msk Infrastructure Pvt. Acit -15(1)(2), Ltd., 1008, 10Th Floor –V, Vs. Room No. 403, 4Th Floor Time Square, Plot No. 3, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sector 14, Belapur Cbd, Mumbai 400 020 Navi Mumbai- 400614 Pan No. Aaccb9447M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain, A.R Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2021

190/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Observing, that as per the CBDT Circular No. 9/2014 the assessee was only entitled to claim amortization of the expenditure that was incurred by it on building infrastructure facility evenly over the period of the concessionaire agreement, the CIT(A) was of the view that

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 896/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Todi Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Ito-8(3)(2), Mumbai 1St Floor, Todi Estate, Sun बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mill Compound, Lower Road, Maharashtra- Parel (W), Maharashtra- 400020 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4620Q Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

190/-. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2015-16 Todi Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4.2 The Appellant prays that carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 72 of the Act be allowed. GROUND NO. 5: NON-GRANT OF MAT CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,14,510/-: 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT - 20(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. J.B. ENGG. WORKS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

section 50. In our considered view, treatment of the assets in the purchaser’s account, does not have any material bearing on taxability of the receipt in the hands of the assessee, since purchaser's treatment of the transaction in its accounts is not determinative of the true nature of the transaction. Further, with regard to contention

ACIT CIR- 2(1) (1) , MUMBAI vs. INFRASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

depreciation on goodwill and customer contracts under section 32(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) amounting to Rs.1,53,72,581/- on the ground that the same was disallowed in previous years. A.Y.2016-17 2. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds should be disallowed.” 3. The brief facts