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

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 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

195 and Sections 196A to 196D forming part of\nChapter XVII-B of the IT Act. The liability to deduct TDS arises under the\nIT Act only if the amount due and payable assumes the nature of payment\nspecified under Chapter XVII-B thereof.\n13. Even assuming specific cases of payment under Chapter XVII

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

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

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the stage of the assessment proceeding itself, it is the claim of the assessee that the term "tax", as defined under section 2(43) of the Act would only include taxes chargeable under the Indian Income Tax Act. It is the further case of the assessee

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

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

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the stage of the assessment proceeding itself, it is the claim of the assessee that the term "tax", as defined under section 2(43) of the Act would only include taxes chargeable under the Indian Income Tax Act. It is the further case of the assessee

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

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

6,36,37,882/-:\n2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the claim for\nPage | 3\nITA No. 4821/Mum/2024\nA.Y. 2017-18\nAditya Birla Finance Limited\ndepreciation u/s.32 of the Act on Goodwill arising on acquisition of\ndivision

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means the arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then one has to see if the market value is discernible from

SUNDEEP FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesundeep Foundation V. Income Tax Officer B-606, Sambhavnath Tower Exemption Ward - 2(2) Sudha Park, Shanti Path Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai- 400077 Parel, Mumbai- 400012 Pan: Aaats8213P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11(6) of the Act i.e., to claim only the depreciation and source of the investments in capital assets are sourced not from application of regular funds of the society. We observe that assessee has carried forward fixed assets from financial year A.Y. 2014-15 for the value of ₹.1,16,68,851/- since the assessee intend to follow

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

depreciation is to be allowed in the impugned Assessment Year\nas well.\n4.5\nIn respect of ground no.6 relating to the levy of interest u/s. 234B, the\nld. Counsel submitted that it is consequential.\n5. Per contra, Shri Rignesh Das, representing the Department strongly\ndefended the assessment order and the findings of the DRP. However, the\nlearned Departmental Representative

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

6. erred in disallowing depreciation of 16,17,97,500 pertaining to Foster's brand by applying the provisions of section 40(a)(1) of the Act read with section 195

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

195/-. 2. Disallowance in respect of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act – Rs. 3,73,243/-. 3. Disallowance of expenses incurred for earning exempt income u/s 14A – Rs. 15,59,529/-. 4. Disallowance of interest on MSMED payments – Rs. 1,69,000/- 5. Disallowance of depreciation on assets (house properties) – Rs. 6,92,248/-. Aggrieved by the additions made

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

STAINLESS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-4(3), (Now Known As Stainless Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ India Ltd.), M.K. Road, Vs. 226, 3Rd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacs7067A

195/-. To this, the assessee added current year's depreciation at Rs. 2,32,059/- and unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from assessment years 1999-2000 and 2002-03 at Rs. 6,42,208/- and claimed set off amounting to Rs. 26,22,462/- from the Long Term capital gains at Rs. 1,30,00,000/-. Profit and gains of business

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

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 37(1) of the Act. On facts, qua each of the sub-head of sales & promotion expenses, the AO is noted to have examined the same and made disallowance in the following manner, which is noted to be independent and different from the amounts admitted to be disallowable by Mr. Beli. Nature of Expenses Quantum Disallowed - Expenses on Patient

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

6 applies." 3.22. From the perusal of the relevant clause of Article 5(4) of the treaty reproduced supra, it could be concluded that the said Article is 29 M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., not at all applicable for reinsurer. This is relevant in view of the observations made by the ld. CIT(A) in 4.2.6 as under