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 32 of the Income-tax Act. (7)To differentiate a building for grant of additional depreciation by holding it to be a ‘plant’ in one case where the building is specially designed and constructed with some special features to attract the customers and a building not so constructed but used for the same purpose, namely, as a hotel

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THIRVANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

Section- 32(1)(ii) and the appellant may be granted the depreciation treating the said right as intangible right at the applicable rate. The appellant prays that the appellant be granted depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/-. 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 & 2, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant prays that

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD,ORRISSA vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

Section- 32(1)(ii) and the appellant may be granted the depreciation treating the said right as intangible right at the applicable rate. The appellant prays that the appellant be granted depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/-. 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 & 2, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant prays that

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. 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

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

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

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 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 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

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

HAZARIBAGH RANCHI EXPRESSWAY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

section 32 of the Act.\nAccordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claim of ₹ 152,56,62,864\nmade by the assessee during the assessment year 2013-14. Further, the AO\nheld that once the ownership itself is held to be not available with the\nassessee, the alternative claim regarding the treatment of the toll roads as\n“plant and machinery

HAZARIBAGH RANCHI EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIR-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 32 of the Act.\nAccordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claim of ₹ 152,56,62,864\nmade by the assessee during the assessment year 2013-14. Further, the AO\nheld that once the ownership itself is held to be not available with the\nassessee, the alternative claim regarding the treatment of the toll roads as\n“plant and machinery

ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

depreciation on the cost incurred @ 25%. The Assessing Officer stated that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation on the cost of construction of jetty as the entire cost being reimbursed by GMB by way of rebate on the wharfage charges which otherwise the assessee was liable to pay in full. Further, the right to use the jetty

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

224 ITR 677 wherein it was held that when a proviso is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and which proviso is required to be read into the section to give it a reasonable interpretation, it could be read to be retrospective in operation, particularly

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHD HAJI SABOO SIDIK INSTITUTION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7019/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ Dcit (E) 2(1) Mohd. Haji Saboo Sidik R.No 519, 5 T H Floor, Institution, Piramal Chamber, C/O. Anjuman I Islam, V. Lalbaug, Badruddin Tayabji Marg, Lower Parel, 92, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabtm6917D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

depreciation on fixed assets of Rs. 1,35,84,224/- in contravention of the decision of Escorts Ltd. vs UOI 199 ITR 43 wherein it was held that since section

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX -14(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

depreciation claimed on non-compete fee acquired from Value Edge should be allowed. Accordingly this ground of the assessee is allowed. 14 ITA 2450 & 2451/Mum/2022 WNS Global Services Pvt Ltd Disallowance under section 14A (Ground 12) 20. The Assessing Officer during the course of hearing noticed that the assessee has made investments in mutual funds, equity and preference shares