THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

section 147 cannot be used as a ploy for roving verification or fishing enquiry into completed matters.\n\n63\nITA No.3012/Mum/2025 and others\nThe Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others\nThe Assessing Officer's act of extrapolating entries found in one year to reopen other years is precisely the mischief which the Court sought to prevent. On this count

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

234B and 234C of the Act be deleted or consequently reduced. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, omit or alter the 5. above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal. J. Department Appeal: ITA No. 3928/MUM/2025 AY 2015-16 The department has raised the following grounds of appeal 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances

ITO 15(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KELLOGG INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee, is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthy

depreciation pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 against the profits of the current year’s assessment. 23. Ground No.4 of the appeal is against charging of interest under section 234B

KELLOGG INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee, is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthy

depreciation pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 against the profits of the current year’s assessment. 23. Ground No.4 of the appeal is against charging of interest under section 234B

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, 234B

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, 234B

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL -JOINT -DEPUTY-ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- ITO, DELHI

depreciation were allowed for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim under Section 72A(4). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the Assessee's appeals were partly allowed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 72A(2)", "Section 72A(4)", "Section 32(1)", "Section 115JB", "Section 10(38)", "Section 234B

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

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

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

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

ASST CIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the expression used is “shall be allowed”. Thus, the assessee company earned the benefit as soon as it has purchased new plant and machinery in full but restricted 50% in that particular year on account of period of usages. Such restrictions cannot divert the statutory right of the assessee. Identical ratio was laid

GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the expression used is “shall be allowed”. Thus, the assessee company earned the benefit as soon as it has purchased new plant and machinery in full but restricted 50% in that particular year on account of period of usages. Such restrictions cannot divert the statutory right of the assessee. Identical ratio was laid

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

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

234B amounting to INR 13,25,76,869.\n9. Ground No. 9: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A\nof the Act.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has\nerred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A of the\nAct for under-reporting of income.\nThe Appellant craves leave

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated

THE DY CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated