M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

Depreciation is allowable on the basis of valuation. 3) Decision relied upon by the CIT(A) in United Breweries Ltd v ACIT (2016) 76 taxmann.com 103 (Bang)(Trib) is not applicable for the following reasons : (i) The decision dealt with the issue of Amalgamation. In case of amalgamation Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) defines Actual cost. Whereas present case

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

depreciable asset and assessee\nhas neither challenged the applicability of Section 50 of the Act nor has it challenged the income\ndetermined in accordance with the Section 50. The issue before us is, whether the rate of tax which\nis to be determined u/s.112 of the Act shall be applicable if asset is a long term capital asset held\nfor

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following

M/S ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following

SILVER SPARK APPAREL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CC-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

sections 309 and 198 of the Companies Act, there could not be any 'non-business' purpose insofar as the assessee- company was concerned. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was wrong in disallowing one-sixth of the total car expenditure and depreciation

ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL PRINERS LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Acit, Anil Printers Ltd. Circle-6(1), R. No.506, 2, Kakad Industrial Estate, बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Matunga West, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400016 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aacca6914C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 72(2) and 72(3) of the Act. Thus, the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier year has to be taken as a part of the current year’s depreciation allowance and to be set off, to the extent possible, against income of the current year. The unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed before the unabsorbed investment allowance

EVEREST INDUSTIRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

section 43 of the Act for the purpose of computing depreciation. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision so rendered by the learned CIT(A). 40. The Learned AR submitted that excise duty incentive was granted to the assessee in order to promote industrialization of backward area of Uttaranchal and also for the purpose of generation of employment and utilisation

VISTA ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

depreciation claimed of ` 81,95,591 by the assessee. The assessment order so passed was challenged before the first appellate authority, inter–alia, on the ground of validity of re–opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee with regard to assessee’s challenge

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1) , MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

sections 309 and 198 of the Companies Act, 1956, there cannot be any 'non business' purpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. In relation to the aforesaid approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we cannot do better than reiterate what the Madras High Court has stated in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1) , MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

sections 309 and 198 of the Companies Act, 1956, there cannot be any 'non business' purpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. In relation to the aforesaid approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we cannot do better than reiterate what the Madras High Court has stated in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1) , MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

sections 309 and 198 of the Companies Act, 1956, there cannot be any 'non business' purpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. In relation to the aforesaid approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we cannot do better than reiterate what the Madras High Court has stated in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1) , MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

sections 309 and 198 of the Companies Act, 1956, there cannot be any 'non business' purpose insofar as the assessee-company is concerned. In relation to the aforesaid approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we cannot do better than reiterate what the Madras High Court has stated in the case of CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi