TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

section 80J(1A)(II) assets entitled to depreciation. In that case their written down value has to be taken into

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

section 80J(1A)(II) assets entitled to depreciation. In that case their written down value has to be taken into

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

section 80J(1A)(II) assets entitled to depreciation. In that case their written down value has to be taken into

YASH DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 27(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Yash Developers, Dcit-27(3), 1St Flr Anand, 7Th Road, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Maryland Apartment, D.K. Vs. Station Complex, Sandhu Marg, Chembur, Vashi-400703 Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaafy 6171 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harmesh Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

depreciation, which is not permissible under the Act. In any case, once we opine that the er the Act. In any case, once we opine that the er the Act. In any case, once we opine that the assessment order had merged with the order of CIT(A) assessment order had merged with the order of CIT(A) assessment order

URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE VENTURE CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Urban Infrastructure Venture The Deputy Commissioner Capital Limited, Of Income Tax Central 121/123, Free Press House, Circle-39, Mumbai Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacu8061E

depreciation on the expenditure incurred by it. We have carefully considered such submission of Ld. DR. Similar provisions as these are contained in explanation-1 to section 32(1) were incorporated into the statute for the first time by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 1970 by inserting new Sub- section (1A

ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. MOBIAPPS INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(2)(4), M/S Mobiapps India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.542, 5Th Floor, 7/10, Borawala Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaccm3613L

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA.” 7. Section 10A was further

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 24 (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 24 (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

depreciation made by the AO, of a sum of Rs.1,60,23458 over and above the receipts of the Assessee during the previous year. The capital gain considered as not utilized for charitable purposes u/s.11(1A) of the Act is only a sum of Rs.1,21,61,909.33 Ps. The surplus utilization of Rs.1,60,23,458 should be sufficient

DCIT, CIR-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SICOM LIMITED, MUMBAI CITY

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalita Nos. 2034 & 2035/Mum/2023 (A.Y:1999-2000 &1998-99) Dcit, Circle-3(3)(1), Vs. M/S Sicom Limited, Room No.609, Solitaire Corporate Aayakar Bhavan, Park, Building No.4, M.K. Road, Guru Nanak Marg, Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Midc S.O, Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs5524J Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation on assets acquired under sale and lease back transaction. Further the A,O has granted interest U/sec244A of the Act on the quantified consequential refund and passed the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act revising the total income of Rs.33,58,77,785/- vide order 27.09.2018. 5. Aggrieved by the rectification order U/sec154 of the Act, the assessee

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

depreciation and losses of the unit, the income which is not eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under section 10A of the I.T. Act.” 7. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: “2. The Assessing Officer, during the course

ECHJAY INDUSTRIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

depreciation loss carried forward of Rs 1,40,14,719/- from the earlier years in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the cases of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills and Defree Engineering Pvt Ltd supra. The ld AO disallowed the claim making the same observations in respect of windmill at Dhule above. 10.2. Relying on the case

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)

depreciation of otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’ of any one previous year. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause,— (a )‘new machinery or plant’ shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (2) of t he Explanation below clause (vi) of this sub-section; (b )‘residential accommodation’ includes

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any previous year. Notes to clause to amend section 32AC read as under:- Clause 14 of the Bill seeks to amend section 32AC of the Income-tax Act relating to investment in new plant or machinery. Sub-section (1A

ACIT CENTRAL CIR6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARIANA INFRASTRUCTURTE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Mariana Infrastructure Of Income Tax, Central Limited, M-62 &63, Circle -6(4) 1St Floor, Connaught Room No. 1925, 19Th Place, New Delhi Floor, Air India Building, 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafcm2619H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ajay Chandra Respondent By : K. Gopal Date Of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Claim Of Deduction Of Revenue Of Cancelled Transaction Of Rs.27,78,65,132/- Cancelled In Subsequent Year From The Book Profit Though Section 115Jb Is A Self-Contained Code Where Even The Additions & Deductions From The Book Profit Are Specified The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Des Not Allow Any Such Deductions?."

depreciation, which had not been charged to profit and loss account but had been disclosed in notes appended to accounts, would be deducted from net profit in determining book profit for purpose of section 115J. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under: The Explanation to section 115J(1A

PERFECT FILAMENTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid decision

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailperfect Filaments Limited, E-23/24/25/26, Commerce Centre, Tardeo Road Tulsi Wadi, S.O., ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aaacp4215F V/S Principal Commissiioner Of Income Tax-4 ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

1A) / section 206C(7) of the Act amounting to Rs.6,87,150/- was not disallowed by the assessee while computing its total income. (c) The assessee has claimed a deduction under section 80G of the Act in respect of expenditure incurred on Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”). ITA No.3501/Mum./2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) 6 10. The learned PCIT, vide notice issued

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

1A).] (14) The Board may make rules in relation to any search or seizure under this section ; in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for the procedure to be followed by the authorised officer— (i) for obtaining ingress into any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft to be searched where free

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

1A).] (14) The Board may make rules in relation to any search or seizure under this section ; in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for the procedure to be followed by the authorised officer— (i) for obtaining ingress into any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft to be searched where free