ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOAICATES P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Hindustan Thompson Income-Tax, Circle 16(1) Associates Private Room No. 439, 4 Th Floor, Limited V. Aayakar Bhawan 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg , Churchgate Peninsula Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach1463M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. B. Srinivas (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Smt. Aarti Vissanji &, Shri. Ajit C. Shah & Ms. Aastha Shah सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1206/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 12.12.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018

depreciation allowance u/s 32. Then comes section 40 with the marginal note "Amounts not deductible". It starts with the non-obstante clause by providing that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the amounts specified in this section shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession

JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation on other intangible assets under section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed. 27. The issue arising in ground No. 5, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to addition on account of disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act in respect of payment made to Mr Ashith Kampani

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

Depreciation @25%\n276,91,10,706/-\nvi) Disallowance of Abandoned\nproject/site expenses-as discussed in\npara-9\nIn Rs.\n127,32,60,974/-\n57,10,82,414/-\n625,62,21,192/-\n62,41,66,807/-\n15,03,41,540/-\n830,73,32,120/-\n85,70,422/-\n(vii) Disallowance of club entrance\nfees--as discussed in para

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

Depreciation @25%\n276,91,10,706/-\nvi) Disallowance of Abandoned\nproject/site expenses-as discussed in\npara-9\nIn Rs.\n127,32,60,974/-\n57,10,82,414/-\n625,62,21,192/-\n62,41,66,807/-\n15,03,41,540/-\n830,73,32,120/-\n85,70,422/-\n(vii) Disallowance of club entrance\nfees--as discussed in para

RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

depreciation @ 25% by treating it as intangible asset. As a result, the excess claim of ` 4,94,710, was added back to the income of the assessee. 4. Though the assessee challenged the disallowance before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), he also confirmed the addition. While doing so, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that as the certificates were issued

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. FIRST ADVANTAGE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation thereon. The assessee has not challenged this add back before us. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has duly taken into consideration all the relevant factors for deciding the expenditure to be a revenue expenditure. In this regard, reliance placed by the assessee on the case of "Raychem RPG Ltd." (supra) is also appropriate, therein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High

DCIT CIR. 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. JM MORGAN STANLEY SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation on BSE and NSE membership cards to the assessee. As a result, ground No. 3 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed.” 19. As far as issue relating to disallowance of club membership fees for Rs.24,000/- paid by the assessee, the same has been held to allowable by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

depreciation on the cost of membership card in the earlier years. 35. As regards the period of holding of shares of BSE Ltd., I find that as per clause (ha) inserted in Explanation 1 to Section 2(42A) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2003, period for which the person was a member of the recognised stock exchange

HDFC SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 4(1) Office Floor 8 Mumbai I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No.Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Dcit – 4(1) (1) Vs. M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Mumbai Office Floor 8 I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No. Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee By Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi / Shri Vidhi Doshi Revenue By Shri Rajat Mittal

section 194J of the Act.” We find that while deciding the appeal the Tribunal had considered all the cases that were available at time and were dealing with the identical issue. So, respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal, we decided ground no.1 in favour of the assessee.” 6. Learned DR fairly conceded that issue is covered

MAHINDRA NAVISTAR AUTOMOTIVES LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT 2(2),

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3324 & 4645/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Mahindra Navistar Automotives Dy. Cit, 2(2), Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ 128 A, Sanghavi Compound, Off. Mumbai Pune Highway, Vs. Opp. Jayashree Cinema, Chinchwad, Pune-411 019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 7863 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. P. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are A Set Of Two Appeals By The Assessee Agitating Its Assessments, I.E., As Modified By The First Appellate Authority, For Two Consecutive Years Being Assessment Under The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2007-08 & 2008-09. The Appeals Raising Common Issues Were Listed For & Are Accordingly Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of, By The Common, Consolidated Order.

depreciation stands nevertheless allowed by the Revenue. No separate arguments were in fact advanced before us in respect of this issue, constituting the second limb of the assessee’s Ground 1 for A.Y. 2007-08. We decide accordingly. 4. The only other and the second ground for both the years is the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) on what

TATA TELESERVICES (MAHARASHTRA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1204/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15) Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Limited Mr. Sanjay Chopra (Taxation –Head) Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Limited ……………. Applicant D-26 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Sanpada, P.O. Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400 073 Pan – Aaadh1458C V/S The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai-400 020

depreciation claim of ₹ 69,78,00,000/- on said 3G Spectrum fees. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the co-ordinate bench decision of Idea Cellular Limited (supra). Following the co-ordinate Bench decision, we allow this issue of assessee’s appeal. 6. The only issue in the appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 1493/Mum/2018