KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

depreciation on landscaping and internal roads in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 55. The additional grounds raised by the assessee on the issue of goodwill are admitted and allowed in the above terms. 56. The grounds relating to levy of interest under sections 234A

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

depreciation on landscaping and internal roads in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 55. The additional grounds raised by the assessee on the issue of goodwill are admitted and allowed in the above terms. 56. The grounds relating to levy of interest under sections 234A

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

234A of the, Act without appreciating that the Appellant had filed the return of income within timeline as prescribed under 139(1) of the Act; 38. erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. E. Initiation of penalty proceedings 39. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

depreciation on\nlandscaping and internal roads in accordance with law, after\naffording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.\n55. The additional grounds raised by the assessee on the issue\nof goodwill are admitted and allowed in the above terms.\n56. The grounds relating to levy of interest under sections 234A

HARSH ESTATE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 31, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1222/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 1992-93) बनधम/ Harsh Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Central Circle-31 32, Madhuli, 3Rd Floor, (Now Dy Cit (Cc-4(3) R. Vs. No.1921, 19Th Floor, Air A.B. Road, Worli, India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400018. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach3480L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/06/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.01.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.1992- 93. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Ld. C Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Upholding Order Passed By Ao U/S 144 Of The Act. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Confirming The Disallowance Of Various Expenses Amounting To Rs.1,32,476/- Claimed By The Appellant As Under.:- S. Particulars Amount No. 1. Audit Fees 64,000/- 2. Repairs & Maintenance 71,476 Rs.1,00,000(-) (7,1324)

depreciation claim in respect of property at Bandra and Bangalore. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts that in confirming the le' of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that

GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 31, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Growmore Leasing & Tax Cc 4(3) Cen Rg-4 Investment Ltd. 32, Madhuli, Third Floor Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 Pan No. Aaacg4397D Appellant .. Respondent M/S Growmore Leasing & Investment Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax Cc 4(3) Cen Rg-4 32, Madhuli, Third Floor Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 Pan No. Aaacg4397D Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Dr. P. Daniel, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Vijay Mehta & Dharmesh Shah, Ars’ .. Date Of Hearing 01-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-11-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

depreciation of Rs.3,38,636/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer.” 22. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that he has instructions from the assessee that this issue is not pressed due to smallness of the amount. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 23. The next common issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order

DCIT CC 4(3) CEN RG 4, MUMBAI vs. GROWMORE LEASING & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Growmore Leasing & Tax Cc 4(3) Cen Rg-4 Investment Ltd. 32, Madhuli, Third Floor Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 Pan No. Aaacg4397D Appellant .. Respondent M/S Growmore Leasing & Investment Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax Cc 4(3) Cen Rg-4 32, Madhuli, Third Floor Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 018 Pan No. Aaacg4397D Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Dr. P. Daniel, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Vijay Mehta & Dharmesh Shah, Ars’ .. Date Of Hearing 01-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-11-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

depreciation of Rs.3,38,636/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer.” 22. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that he has instructions from the assessee that this issue is not pressed due to smallness of the amount. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 23. The next common issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order

GLITCH MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

234A of Rs.68,793 of the\nAct.\n11. erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.6,87,930 of the\nAct.\n12. erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act of Rs.\n44,401 on the assessed income without appreciating that section\n234C of the Act is applicable only on returned income and not on\nthe assessed

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

depreciation amounting to Rs. 23,85,90,730/-under section 32 of the Act?\nh) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of section 44 of the IT Act, 1961 read with Rule 5 (a) of the First schedule

VAN OORD DREDGING AND MARINE CONTRACTORS BV ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation against the addition of management service fees. Short grant of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of Rs. 16,04,554 Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors B.V. ITA no.672/Mum./2022 ITA no.1980/Mum./2022 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / DRP: 9. Erred in short granting

M/S. VANOORD DREDGNG & MACHINE CONTRACTORS BV,MUMBAI vs. SCIT INTL TAX 4-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation against the addition of management service fees. Short grant of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of Rs. 16,04,554 Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors B.V. ITA no.672/Mum./2022 ITA no.1980/Mum./2022 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / DRP: 9. Erred in short granting

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

depreciation recomputation, interest levies, or carry-forward adjustments lose their footing. In consequence, these incidental matters need no separate adjudication and are rendered infructuous.\n49. For the sake of clarity and completeness, it is hereby recorded that: (i) additions were made towards alleged unaccounted investment in land at Dhokawade, are deleted in full; (ii) assessments reopened under section

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

depreciation recomputation, interest levies, or carry-forward adjustments lose their footing. In consequence, these incidental matters need no separate adjudication and are rendered infructuous.\n\n49. For the sake of clarity and completeness, it is hereby recorded that: (i) additions were made towards alleged unaccounted investment in land at Dhokawade, are deleted in full; (ii) assessments reopened under section

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act The Id. AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for assessment year under consideration declaring

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

depreciation on fixed assets to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. (iv) raised in Revenue‟s appeal is dismissed. 13. Insofar as ground no. (v) raised in Revenue‟s appeal is concerned, same is general in nature and is also dismissed in view of our aforesaid findings in Revenue‟s appeal. 14. In the result, appeal by the Revenue being

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

depreciation on fixed assets to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. (iv) raised in Revenue‟s appeal is dismissed. 13. Insofar as ground no. (v) raised in Revenue‟s appeal is concerned, same is general in nature and is also dismissed in view of our aforesaid findings in Revenue‟s appeal. 14. In the result, appeal by the Revenue being

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

depreciation on fixed assets to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. (iv) raised in Revenue‟s appeal is dismissed. 13. Insofar as ground no. (v) raised in Revenue‟s appeal is concerned, same is general in nature and is also dismissed in view of our aforesaid findings in Revenue‟s appeal. 14. In the result, appeal by the Revenue being

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. 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

depreciation on fixed assets to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. (iv) raised in Revenue‟s appeal is dismissed. 13. Insofar as ground no. (v) raised in Revenue‟s appeal is concerned, same is general in nature and is also dismissed in view of our aforesaid findings in Revenue‟s appeal. 14. In the result, appeal by the Revenue being

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

depreciation on fixed assets to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. (iv) raised in Revenue‟s appeal is dismissed. 13. Insofar as ground no. (v) raised in Revenue‟s appeal is concerned, same is general in nature and is also dismissed in view of our aforesaid findings in Revenue‟s appeal. 14. In the result, appeal by the Revenue being