ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation including statement of\nprofit and loss for such\n18\nI.T.A. No. 424/Mum/2020\nI.T.A. No. 882/Mum/2020\nfinancial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant\nprevious year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than\nreferred to in Clause (b). According to clause (a), for the purpose

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, CIT(APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. 41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than referred to in Clause (b). According to clause

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation which have been adopted\nfor preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such\nfinancial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant\nprevious year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than\nreferred to in Clause (b). According to clause

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation which have been adopted\nfor preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such\nfinancial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant\nprevious year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than\nreferred to in Clause (b). According to clause

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

3,72,00210 under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act be deleted.\nGround II: Gains in respect of long term capital assets, computed under\nsection 50 of the Act, have been charged to tax at normal rates instead of being\ncharged to tax at the rates mentioned in section 112 of the Act\n2.1 On the facts

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation which have been adopted\nfor preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such\nfinancial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant\nprevious year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than\nreferred to in Clause (b). According to clause

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation which have been adopted\nfor preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such\nfinancial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant\nprevious year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than\nreferred to in Clause (b). According to clause

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

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

depreciation and consideration of only a part of it being Rs. 6.45 crore by Assessing Officer, only a part of it being Rs. 6.45 crore by Assessing Officer, only a part of it being Rs. 6.45 crore by Assessing Officer, who did not go into issue with respect to whole amount, who did not go into issue with respect

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

3. Allowance of DTR (Double Taxation Relief) relief of INR 4,45,02,80,154 under section 90 and 91 of the Act. 3.1 The learned PCIT erred in setting aside the said matter without verifying the facts and submissions made by the Bank instead of directing the AO to allow the DTR claim

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from Singapore branch and which is a main lender of the loan. Therefore, any interest payment

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from Singapore branch and which is a main lender of the loan. Therefore, any interest payment

ACC LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from Singapore branch and which is a main lender of the loan. Therefore, any interest payment

AEGIS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

depreciation allowance aggregating to INR 40,22,26,882 is not regulated by the provisions of section 79 of the Act. 19. The learned AO / DRP have erred in making a disallowance of current year loss aggregating to INR 22,48,71,471 on account of redemption of preference shares. a. The learned AO / DRP has failed to give

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AEGIS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainaegis Limited, Essar Techno Park, Old Swan Mill Compound, Lbs Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 Pan:Aaace 8354Q ...... Appellant

depreciation allowance aggregating to INR 40,22,26,882 is not regulated by the provisions of section 79 of the Act. 19. The learned AO / DRP have erred in making a disallowance of current year loss aggregating to INR 22,48,71,471 on account of redemption of preference shares. a. The learned AO / DRP has failed to give