DCIT CC- 7(3), MUMBAI vs. ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

208 of the Companies Act which makes provision for payment of interest on share capital in certain contingencies. Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of that section provides that in case interest is paid on share capital issued for the purpose of raising money to defray the expenses of constructing any work or building or the provision of any plant

ACG ASSOCATION CAPSULES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

208 of the Companies Act which makes provision for payment of interest on share capital in certain contingencies. Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of that section provides that in case interest is paid on share capital issued for the purpose of raising money to defray the expenses of constructing any work or building or the provision of any plant

DCIT- CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

208 of the Companies Act which makes provision for payment of interest on share capital in certain contingencies. Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of that section provides that in case interest is paid on share capital issued for the purpose of raising money to defray the expenses of constructing any work or building or the provision of any plant

ACG ASSOCATION CAPSULES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

208 of the Companies Act which makes provision for payment of interest on share capital in certain contingencies. Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of that section provides that in case interest is paid on share capital issued for the purpose of raising money to defray the expenses of constructing any work or building or the provision of any plant

GANESH BENZOPLAST LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesrl

depreciation pertaining to A.Y.1997-98 to A.Y.2001-02 will be carried forward to A.Y.2002-03 and as a result become part thereof in terms of the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. Accordingly, it will be available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limits. Subsequently

DCIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 44 of the Act read with Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule is a disabling provision and not an enabling provision. ix. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation u/s.32 of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,29,65,208

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

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 or profession are computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 30 to 43 of the Act. Depreciation is allowed as per the provisions

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON MANAGEMENT (INDIA) P.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -RANGE-6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Franklin Templeton Dy. Cit–Range 6(3)(1) Management (India) P. Ltd. Room No.506, 5 Th Floor, 12Th& 13Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, India Bulls Finance Center, Vs. Tower–2, Senapati Bapat M.K. Road, Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaact1609B Assessee By : Shri Farooq Irani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vrinda U Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.10.2022

208 has allowed the claim of the assessee of depreciation on goodwill. He further referred to the order of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2010 – 11 in ITA number 90/M/2016 dated 13/12/2017 where in the appeal filed by the revenue against the allowance of the claim of depreciation on goodwill by the learned

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 204, Raheja Centre, Free Press Tax,Circle 3(4), Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 Pan : Aaace30836F Appellant Respondent

208 63,54,335 Depreciation up to Date of Sale Total Net 21,56,892 80,99,-098 8,27,785 89,60,690 2,00,44,465 Block of Deduction on date of Deduction Sale Value 11,71,429 46,60,000 5,33,438 80,00,000 1,43,64,867 (Profit)/Loss

ASSTT. CIT -CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LUPIN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

208 section 35(2AB) of the Act 7 TP adjustment on account of Corporate 41,13,867 Guarantee and Letter of comfort 5. The AO made adjustment to the profits eligible for deduction under section 80IB towards weighted deduction disallowed under section 35(2AB), disallowance of Sales Promotion expenses and disallowance of ESOP expenses to allow additional deduction of Rs.6

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

208 section 35(2AB) of the Act 7 TP adjustment on account of Corporate 41,13,867 Guarantee and Letter of comfort 5. The AO made adjustment to the profits eligible for deduction under section 80IB towards weighted deduction disallowed under section 35(2AB), disallowance of Sales Promotion expenses and disallowance of ESOP expenses to allow additional deduction of Rs.6

ACIT - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2)(2) Sonata Software Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.348, 3Rd Floor 208, T.V. Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, M.K Road Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Worli, Mumbai 400 030 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcs8459D याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 21/03/2018

208, T.V. Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, M.K Road Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Worli, Mumbai 400 030 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. AABCS8459D याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta ुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 21/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date of Order: 21/03/2018 आदेश

JABIL CIRCUIT INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 43(6)c)\nof the Act, the written down value of the block of assets can be\nreduced by money's payable in respect of the asset which is\nsold/ discarded/demolished/ destroyed.\nSince, the asset has not been actually sold /discarded\n/demolished 'destroyed, JCIPL submits that the asset cannot be\nexcluded for the purpose of depreciation and the said

HATHWAY IN vs. TS PVT LTD,VS.THE DCIT CENT CIR - 34,

Appeal is allowed

208 taxman 439)that Expl.to Section 73 would not operate in respect of a co. whose gross total income consisted mainly of income that was chargeable under the heads interest on securities, income from house property,capital gains and income from other sources. Respectfully following the above case,we decide Ground No.2 in favour of the assessee,as the facts

L,OREAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhl‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle-7(1)(2) A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Aayakar Bhavan, Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, M.K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Vs. Pan: Aaacl0738K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 .07.2020 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

depreciation of goodwill. However, the addition on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of Rs. 8.27 crore was deleted. On receipt of direction of DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 14.10.2019 by making adding ITA No. 7204 Mum 2019-L‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. addition of AMP and disallowance of depriciation. Aggrieved by the various addition/disallowance

MIRAGE CERAMICS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mirage Ceramics Private Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, D Wing, Trade Income Tax World 12(3)(2) Senapati Bapat Marg , Aykar Bhavan Vs. Kamla Mill Compound, M K Road Mumbai -400 013 Mumbai 20 Pan Aaecm2513R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafd0295J

depreciation as per the law. 3. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturer and trader of ceramics and vitrified tiles. It filed its return of income on 22/11/2014 showing a loss of ₹ 22,208,015/–. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and notice under section

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

208 or section 209 of the Act, advance tax is to be computed on the estimated current income of the assessee and in case such income is not taxable, there is no liability imposed on the assessee to pay any advance tax. In the present case, as the assessee trust at the relevant time of deposit of advance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

208 or section 209 of the Act, advance tax is to be computed on the estimated current income of the assessee and in case such income is not taxable, there is no liability imposed on the assessee to pay any advance tax. In the present case, as the assessee trust at the relevant time of deposit of advance