DCIT CC 7(2).MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

depreciation. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted all the three r appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted all the three r appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted all the three additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before the Income-tax additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before the additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before the Appellate Tribunal Tribunal

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

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

depreciation on the same. With regard to the software for resale, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same for the reason that the assessee has not deducted any tax on the software imported. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 41. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld.DR further submitted that

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

depreciation on the same. With regard to the software for resale, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same for the reason that the assessee has not deducted any tax on the software imported. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 41. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld.DR further submitted that

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT-1, MUMBAI

797/Mum/2018

depreciation on imported software if the same is treated as capital in nature. 7.4. Per contra, the ld. DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7.5. We find ultimately that this issue has been restored to the file of the ld. AO by this Tribunal in A.Y.2009-10 by making certain observations. We find that while rendering this

EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY (INDIA)PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) Dcit, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [Pan No. Aaace1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 195 of Rs. 4.24 crore. All such additions were made in draft assessment order dated 28.09.2021. Copy of draft assessment order 28.09.2021 was served upon the assessee. The assessee exercised its option in filing objection before DRP. Before DRP, the assessee filed detailed written submission. The ld. DRP after considering the report of TPO various

UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

195 r.w.s.9(1)(vii) and\nExplanation to section 9(2). Accordingly, disallowance was made us. 40(a)(i). By\nthe impugned order, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.\n14. It was also argued by ld. AR that Titus being a resident law firm, is liable to\ntax in India. In view of proviso to Section 40(a)(i), in case

DY CIT 9 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SABMILLER INDIA LTD (NOW KNOWN AS ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

depreciation under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non–deduction of TDS under section 195 r/w section 200 of the Act. 5. The learned

LINFOX LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

195 of the Act. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves to leave or add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter with the Income Tax appellate Tribunal

ASIAN ADVERTISING,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2349/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Asian Advertising, Ito – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chambers, Mumbai. V. 66, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafa1477D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 43(3) of the Act nowhere mentions the word building and with effect from 1-4-2004 the provisions of the Act specifically excludes buildings, furniture and fixtures from the word plant. The AO observed that the definition of building should not be construed strictly by its literary meaning but has to be extended to any structure which

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Section 80G are not fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground.\"\n22. Respectfully following the decisions referred above, we set\naside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition,\nthus allowing the ground of appeal.\n23.Ground no.V relates to non granting of credit of TCS of Rs.\n1,63,195/-.\n24. Before us, the ld.AR

THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - RANGE -3, MUMBAI

depreciation on amount paid to Gillanders Arbuthnot and\nCompany Ltd. Since the deduction has been allowed by the Coordinate\nBench as revenue expenditure this ground becomes infructuous.\n22. In the result, the captioned appeal relating to the domestic issues\nraised by the assessee are partly allowed.\n23. Now coming to the domestic issues raised by the revenue in its\nappeals

DCIT (IT) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly\nallowed and that of the revenue are partly allowed

depreciation on amount paid to Gillanders Arbuthnot and\nCompany Ltd. Since the deduction has been allowed by the Coordinate\nBench as revenue expenditure this ground becomes infructuous.\n22. In the result, the captioned appeal relating to the domestic issues\nraised by the assessee are partly allowed.\n23. Now coming to the domestic issues raised by the revenue in its\nappeals

DCIT (IT) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP LTD, MUMBAI

195", "Section 201(1)", "Section 201(1A)" ], "issues": "The appeals involved disputes concerning transfer pricing adjustments on various international transactions and several domestic issues including employee separation costs, depreciation

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the payments made for obtaining membership is not allowable expenditure and the payments made towards annual renewal fees and expenditure incurred at Clubs for the business purpose is allowable expenditure, but not the payment made for obtaining membership. The AO further held

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the payments made for obtaining membership is not allowable expenditure and the payments made towards annual renewal fees and expenditure incurred at Clubs for the business purpose is allowable expenditure, but not the payment made for obtaining membership. The AO further held

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () It(Tp)A No. 3262/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 195 of the Act. Insofar as the expenditure incurred on the software products acquired in internal use, we, on a perusal of the facts on record are of the view that by incurring such expenditure, the assessee has acquired assets of enduring benefit. Therefore, the expenditure incurred is capital in nature and the assessee would be entitled for depreciation