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

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

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

ICICI BANK LTD. vs. DCIT RANGE 3(1),

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation and in term of Tata Chemicals (supra) on the issue of interest capitalization on building. Accordingly, these two issues are restored back to the file of the AO. 20. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to disallowance of deduction for provision for Bad Debts amounting to Rs. 272,94,72,271/-. At the outset

DCIT RG. 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation and in term of Tata Chemicals (supra) on the issue of interest capitalization on building. Accordingly, these two issues are restored back to the file of the AO. 20. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to disallowance of deduction for provision for Bad Debts amounting to Rs. 272,94,72,271/-. At the outset

ABOTT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation on vaporizer claimed as deduction u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. We have already adjudicated this ground while deciding the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 3472/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2006-07 in the foregoing paragraphs of this order. Hence, our above decision in ITA No. 3472/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2006-07 as contained in preceding

ABBOTT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation on vaporizer claimed as deduction u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. We have already adjudicated this ground while deciding the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 3472/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2006-07 in the foregoing paragraphs of this order. Hence, our above decision in ITA No. 3472/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2006-07 as contained in preceding

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section 10A in Chapter

ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue for the

depreciation on capital expense Rs.1039/-\nand disallowance of brought forward loss and unabsorbed\ndepreciation before giving effect to deduction u/s.10A.\n4.4 On receipt of the draft assessment order the assessee\nintimated its intention to filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).\nAccordingly the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on\n13/05/2015.\nAggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO assessee preferred

ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue for the

depreciation on capital expense Rs.1039/-\nand disallowance of brought forward loss and unabsorbed\ndepreciation before giving effect to deduction u/s.10A.\n4.4 On receipt of the draft assessment order the assessee\nintimated its intention to filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).\nAccordingly the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on\n13/05/2015.\nAggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO assessee preferred

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

234 ITR 56). The point that remains to be considered is whether the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra Mills would also apply subsequent to assessment year 1988-89 when the concept of block of asset was introduced for the purpose of computing claim for depreciation and section

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

234/- computed at the rate of 25% as opposed to depreciation at the rate of 40% claimed by the Assessee. 5.3. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by placing reliance upon the decision of his predecessor in appeal preferred by the Assessee for ITA. No. 6591 & 6549/Mum/2010 (AY 2004-05) ITA. No. 2780 & 2849/Mum/2011 (AY 2005-06) the Assessment Years

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

234/- computed at the rate of 25% as opposed to depreciation at the rate of 40% claimed by the Assessee. 5.3. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by placing reliance upon the decision of his predecessor in appeal preferred by the Assessee for ITA. No. 6591 & 6549/Mum/2010 (AY 2004-05) ITA. No. 2780 & 2849/Mum/2011 (AY 2005-06) the Assessment Years

FAYZ E HUSAYNI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NAFC) DELHI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

depreciation. The cases cited by\nthe appellant have been duly considered, but the facts of the\ninstant case and cases cited by appellant are different. I find it\nrelevant to rely on following decisions in this regard:-\nIn the case of P. C. Joseph & Brothers vs. CIT (240 ITR\n808), the Hon'ble Kerala High Court observed that \"Simply because

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 under section 32(1) of the Act in which claimed amount of addition to plant and machinery is reflected. However, Ld.CIT opined that there is no evidence on record that the plant and machinery were acquired/purchased and capitalized during F.Y. 2013-14. He noted that during the course of assessment proceedings for A. Y 2015-16, it was seen

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

depreciation for determining the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act is merely based on change of opinion. It was submitted that despite amendment to section 147 of the Act, a mere change of opinion will not warrant a reopening u/s 147 of the Act for initiating reassessment proceedings. The assessee company relied upon following case laws to support its contentions

ASST CIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. ESSEL SAGAR DAMOH TOLL ROADS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodasstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Cir)- M/S Essel Sagar Damoh Toll Roads Ltd. 6(2)(2), Room No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, 135, Continental Build. A.B. Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate Vs. Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai- 400 020. Pan – Aacce2160Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

234/- ignoring the factthat assessee was not correct in claiming the depreciation u/s 32 on Concession Rights Toll by treating the same as intangible assets. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the order of the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 28(iv) - CIT v. Rajaram Maize Products [1998] 234 ITR 667. 8.2.12 It has further claimed that the Benches of the Tribunal have in the under-mentioned cases held subsidy of similar nature as being capital receipt: Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1999] 62 TTJ (Cal.) 275/ 104 Taxman 77 (Mag.); Addl. CIT v. Chodavaram

PALLAVI HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEI CIR 31 NOW DCIT CC 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Pallavi Holdings P. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle – 31 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor [Now Dcit, Cc-4(3)] Vs. A.B. Road, Worli Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400018 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacp8031H Appellant Respondent

depreciation on the said flat at NCPA in these years and whether the assessee’s claim in this regard, if any, was considered and disallowed by the AO. A proper appreciation of the facts in this issue, in our considered view, could have a bearing on the exigibility to tax of the profit on sale of the capital asset

HANUMAN SINGH RATHORE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1517/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

depreciation—finding that claims were erroneous and there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars-- penalty could not be levied—income-tax act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c). In Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. Roles (Mad), it was held that the levy of penalty was based on the estimation of income. There cannot be any imposition