JM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

5) The appellant prays that if lease rentals are not allowed as a deduction, depreciation on leased assets and finance charges included in the lease rentals may be allowed as a deduction. C) Additional disallowance u/s. 14A - Rs. 21,48,928/- 6) The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of the AO making

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

21,99 disallowed and corresponding adjustment was made in order disallowed and corresponding adjustment was made in order disallowed and corresponding adjustment was made in order passed u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. passed u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

depreciation in such a way that he has chosen nil liability. 16. He also relies on Second ITO v. Stumpp, Schuele & Somappa (P.) Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 399 (Kar.). In the said case, it is stated that section 2(9) of the Act provides that the words and expressions used in the Act, but not defined in it and defined

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

21 years, that is upto the assessment year 1995-96, still continued to be part of the business asset and depreciable asset, no matter the non-user disentitles the assessee for depreciation for two years prior to the date of sale. We do not know how a depreciable asset forming part of block of assets within the meaning Section

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

5,30,85,161 1,40,000 18,40,00,703 10. Subsequently the assessee recovered the said amount by selling the flats for a consideration of Rs. 21 cr. to its sister concern M/s Jivesh Developers & Properties Pvt. Ltd. and in the books of account reflected a sum of Rs. 2,59,99,297/- (Rs.21,00,00,000 less

DCIT , CC- 8(1), MUMBAI vs. NIRSHILP SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

21. The "recognized association" means: "recognized association" means a recognized association as referred to in clause (j) of section 281 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (74 of 1952) and which fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed82 and is notified83 by the Central Government for this purpose;] 22. We also find that all the transactions made

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Section whereas u/s.115JB, book profit as computed under Companies Act, 1956 is to be subjected to MAT. Therefore, the arguments of the Ld. A.R. is legally not enable. The ratio of DCW Ltd. vs. DCIT 12(5 TTJ (Mumbai) 416 is having different contexts. Here in this case there is taxable income as mentioned earlier as per book profit, hence

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

5) of Section 80- IA of the Act is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of Section 80-IA of the Act by treating ‘eligible business’ as the ‘only source of income’.” 25 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 21. We notice that sub-section (3) of section 80HHE which deals with the manner

INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE SERVICES P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2009-10 Inventurus Knowledge Services V. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. 5(2)(1), C/O. Seren Properties Pvt. Ltd. 525, Aaykar Bhavan, (Sez), Unit No. 204, Build No. 5, M.K. Road, Mindspace Airoli Camp, Plot No. Mumbai - 400 020. 3, Gat No. 95, Kalwa Trans, Thane Creek, Midc Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan/Gir No. Aabck4601P

21 of 44 22 Assessment year: - 2009-10 Association of India (FEDAI). Accordingly, on the balance sheet date, based on the exchange rate on that date, provision of profit/loss substitutes the figures booked at the time of contract. Thus, revalued loss/profit was debited to the profit and loss account. Further, this treatment was as per principles of accounting which required

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 80-IA(5) of the Act has used the word "initial assessment year" and not "year of commencement" and difference between the two is not appreciated. Accordingly, provisions of sec 80-IA(5) would be applicable only in the year subsequent to the initial assessment year and the unabsorbed depreciation of windmill division for all years earlier to initial

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GARDEN COURT DISTILLERIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledcit-9(3)(2) V. M/S. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Unit No. 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Raheja Plaza, Off. Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053

depreciation of eligible business, even though they have been allowed to be set off against other income in the earlier years. The learned Counsel submits that in the wake of such position, the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order and allowing the deduction of the entire profits under Section 80IA(5) of the Act. 5. The learned Senior Counsel

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.

section 32(1), the assessee being amalgamated company, could not claim or be allowed to claim, depreciation on assets acquire in a scheme of amalgamation more than depreciation that was allowable to amalgamating company. This ratio duly applies to the present case inasmuch as here we have a succession of firm by the assessee company and hence the claim

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciable - - - - - - - - - asset 5% on bldg. used for office 16 Adhoc 30% disallowance from - - - - - 5 1 - 5 reimbursement of expenditure to director 17 Unexplained cash loan recd from Paresh - - - - - - - 4 4 - - 1, 2 Shah u/s. 69A 18 Adjustment in 143(1) for treatment of - - - - - - - - - contingent liability 19 Payment in Ethopia based on WhatsApp - - - - - - - - 4 chat u/s. 69C 20 Payment to Manoj

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciable - - - - - - - - - asset 5% on bldg. used for office 16 Adhoc 30% disallowance from - - - - - 5 1 - 5 reimbursement of expenditure to director 17 Unexplained cash loan recd from Paresh - - - - - - - 4 4 - - 1, 2 Shah u/s. 69A 18 Adjustment in 143(1) for treatment of - - - - - - - - - contingent liability 19 Payment in Ethopia based on WhatsApp - - - - - - - - 4 chat u/s. 69C 20 Payment to Manoj

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciable - - - - - - - - - asset 5% on bldg. used for office 16 Adhoc 30% disallowance from - - - - - 5 1 - 5 reimbursement of expenditure to director 17 Unexplained cash loan recd from Paresh - - - - - - - 4 4 - - 1, 2 Shah u/s. 69A 18 Adjustment in 143(1) for treatment of - - - - - - - - - contingent liability 19 Payment in Ethopia based on WhatsApp - - - - - - - - 4 chat u/s. 69C 20 Payment to Manoj

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciable - - - - - - - - - asset 5% on bldg. used for office 16 Adhoc 30% disallowance from - - - - - 5 1 - 5 reimbursement of expenditure to director 17 Unexplained cash loan recd from Paresh - - - - - - - 4 4 - - 1, 2 Shah u/s. 69A 18 Adjustment in 143(1) for treatment of - - - - - - - - - contingent liability 19 Payment in Ethopia based on WhatsApp - - - - - - - - 4 chat u/s. 69C 20 Payment to Manoj

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciable - - - - - - - - - asset 5% on bldg. used for office 16 Adhoc 30% disallowance from - - - - - 5 1 - 5 reimbursement of expenditure to director 17 Unexplained cash loan recd from Paresh - - - - - - - 4 4 - - 1, 2 Shah u/s. 69A 18 Adjustment in 143(1) for treatment of - - - - - - - - - contingent liability 19 Payment in Ethopia based on WhatsApp - - - - - - - - 4 chat u/s. 69C 20 Payment to Manoj

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

depreciable - - - - - - - - - asset 5% on bldg. used for office 16 Adhoc 30% disallowance from - - - - - 5 1 - 5 reimbursement of expenditure to director 17 Unexplained cash loan recd from Paresh - - - - - - - 4 4 - - 1, 2 Shah u/s. 69A 18 Adjustment in 143(1) for treatment of - - - - - - - - - contingent liability 19 Payment in Ethopia based on WhatsApp - - - - - - - - 4 chat u/s. 69C 20 Payment to Manoj