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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

194 ITD 124 (Bangalore-Trib.)\nheld that consideration paid by the amalgamated company over and above the net\nPage | 23\nITA No. 4821/Mum/2024\nA.Y. 2017-18\nAditya Birla Finance Limited\nassets of the amalgamating company should be considered as goodwill arising on\namalgamation.\n29. Thus, once the AO has allowed the claim of depreciation on intangible assets\nacquired

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation on spectrum 4,08,01,38,956 fees Total Disallowances 9,62,14,04,426 Taxable income under the head business or 2,16,66,85,561 profession Income from Other Sources (as per revised computation) Interest on fixed deposit 4,19,03,514 4,19,03,514 Total income 25,09,29,739 Total Income

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

LAKME LEVER PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PCIT,MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Lakme Lever Private Limited V. Pr.Cit, Mumbai -1 Unilever House 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala Aayakar Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcl5555B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Department Represented By : Smt. Shailja Rai

depreciation, if any, as per the provisions of section 32 of the Act. 4. Further, he observed that assessee has debited an amount of ₹.2,77,23,272/- in its Profit and Loss Account under the head 'Royalty'. He observed that a careful examination of the Tax Audit Report indicates 3 M/s. Lakme Lever Private Limited that TDS u/s. 194J

SERVICOS DE PETROLEO CONSTELLATION SA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt Renu Jauhri, Am Servicos De Petroleo Constellation Sa Dcit(International Taxation), India Project Office: Circle-4(2)(1) Unit No. 1803 To 1808, 18Th Floor, Mumbai B-Wing, Business Park, Vs. Veer Savarkar Road, Part Site, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079

depreciation and brought forward loss shall be allowed to the assessee for such previous year. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "plant" includes ships, aircraft, vehicles, drilling units, scientific apparatus and equipment, used for the purposes of the said business; (ii) "mineral oil" includes petroleum and natural gas.] 10. The assessee in the present case comes under

STOCK TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT OSD-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhstock Traders Private Ltd. Acit (Osd)-2(3) 63, Bombay Samachar Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400020. Vs. Pan: Aaacs7235A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Nishant Somaiya (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

depreciation. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 17.12.2009. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order treated the interest income of Rs. 96,90,280/- as “Income From Other Sources” instead of Income from ‘Profit & Gains of Business and Profession’, disallowed professional fees

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LTD. WHICH STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS IDEA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE- 5 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation on 261,29,65,700 spectrum fees (v) On account of payment to IBM 14,66,83,051 (vi) Less: Allowance u/s.40(a)(ia) for amount paid u/s 201(1) as per the direction of DRP (-)15,00,00,000 730,66,64,771 Taxable Income under the head 245,40,48,854 business or profession II. Income from

DIWANTHAM TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUBMAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Diwantham Tollway Private Limited Pcit – 6, Mumbai Unit No. 603B, 6Th Floor, Godrej Bkkc, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Plot No. C-68, G Block, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aagcd6193G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

depreciation on intangible asset in assessment order. The assessee submitted that issue was examined, verified and was accepted hence no variation was made. The assessee submitted that provisions of section 263 can only be invoked where twin conditions that assessment order is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue are satisfied. The assessee also relied

VIACOM 18, MEDIA PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 142(1) of the Act\ndated 19/08/2021(PB-18) raised following query:\n\n“8. With respect to depreciation claimed during the year, kindly\nprovide the following details:\n1. Detail of the asset/block\nii) Opening WDV\niii) Addition and deletion during the year\niv) Depreciation charged on assets/block T\nv) Detail of additional depreciation claimed, if any along with

M/S. G.D. BIRLA MEDICAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMM OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -EXEM CIRCLE -1 OR NFAC DELHI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S G.D. Birla Medical Vs. Acit, Exemption,Circle-1 Research & Room No. 506, 5 Th Floor, Educational Foundation Piramal Chamber, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, Lal Baug, Parel, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 030 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaatg4151C Appellant .. Respondent

SECTION 234B OF THE ACT: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234B of the Act. 2. The Appellant prays that the interest charged u/s 234B of the Act be deleted. GENERAL The Appellant craves leaves to add to, alter and/or amend any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date

ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

depreciation as claimed by assessee at Rs. 35,29,64,19,750/- against the deprecation allowed by the A.O. at Rs. 32,67,34,84,564/- by directing to adopt the WDV of the assets as on 01-04-2008. 7 M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(1) NOW DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Reliance Infrastructure 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Reliance Energy Centre Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai- 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Reliance Energy Centre 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Santacruz East, Mumbai- Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation. 4. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is covered by High Court judgement in assessee’s own case for AYs 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. He particularly referred to Bombay High Court order in Income Tax Appeal M/s Reliance Infrastructure

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INFRSTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Reliance Infrastructure 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Reliance Energy Centre Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai- 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Reliance Energy Centre 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Santacruz East, Mumbai- Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation. 4. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is covered by High Court judgement in assessee’s own case for AYs 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. He particularly referred to Bombay High Court order in Income Tax Appeal M/s Reliance Infrastructure

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 32 on the same for Assessment Year 2011-12.” Based on the submissions of the Ld.AR, the above additional grounds are dismissed as not pressed. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. The assessee for the year under consideration filed its return of income on 29/11/2011 declaring income of Rs.15,95,73,718/- under normal provisions

ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue for the

Section 32 on the same for Assessment Year 2011-12.”\nBased on the submissions of the Ld.AR, the above additional\ngrounds are dismissed as not pressed.\nBrief facts of the case are as under:\n3. The assessee for the year under consideration filed its\nreturn of income on 29/11/2011 declaring income of\nRs.15,95,73,718/- under normal provisions

ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue for the

Section 32 on the same for Assessment Year 2011-12.”\nBased on the submissions of the Ld.AR, the above additional\ngrounds are dismissed as not pressed.\nBrief facts of the case are as under:\n3. The assessee for the year under consideration filed its\nreturn of income on 29/11/2011 declaring income of\nRs.15,95,73,718/- under normal provisions

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section 10A in Chapter