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 of the Act. Charging of interest under section 234B is consequential and mandatory. Accordingly, ground No.4 of the appeal is dismissed. 24. The ground No.5 of the appeal

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

234C of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 7 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 8. Insofar as ground nos. 6 and 8 in assessee‟s appeal are concerned, same pertains to levy of interest under section 234B / 234D of the Act. While ground no. 9 in assessee‟s appeal pertains to addition of interest received under section 244A

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

234C of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 7 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 8. Insofar as ground nos. 6 and 8 in assessee‟s appeal are concerned, same pertains to levy of interest under section 234B / 234D of the Act. While ground no. 9 in assessee‟s appeal pertains to addition of interest received under section 244A

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

234C of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 7 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 8. Insofar as ground nos. 6 and 8 in assessee‟s appeal are concerned, same pertains to levy of interest under section 234B / 234D of the Act. While ground no. 9 in assessee‟s appeal pertains to addition of interest received under section 244A

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

234C of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 7 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 8. Insofar as ground nos. 6 and 8 in assessee‟s appeal are concerned, same pertains to levy of interest under section 234B / 234D of the Act. While ground no. 9 in assessee‟s appeal pertains to addition of interest received under section 244A

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

234C of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 7 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 8. Insofar as ground nos. 6 and 8 in assessee‟s appeal are concerned, same pertains to levy of interest under section 234B / 234D of the Act. While ground no. 9 in assessee‟s appeal pertains to addition of interest received under section 244A

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

234C of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 7 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 8. Insofar as ground nos. 6 and 8 in assessee‟s appeal are concerned, same pertains to levy of interest under section 234B / 234D of the Act. While ground no. 9 in assessee‟s appeal pertains to addition of interest received under section 244A

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

234C of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 7 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 8. Insofar as ground nos. 6 and 8 in assessee‟s appeal are concerned, same pertains to levy of interest under section 234B / 234D of the Act. While ground no. 9 in assessee‟s appeal pertains to addition of interest received under section 244A

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

234C of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 7 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 8. Insofar as ground nos. 6 and 8 in assessee‟s appeal are concerned, same pertains to levy of interest under section 234B / 234D of the Act. While ground no. 9 in assessee‟s appeal pertains to addition of interest received under section 244A

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 and 234C

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 and 234C

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

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

ACIT 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. TML DRIVELINES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 234C of the Act as per law. Accordingly, this issue is restored back to the file of the AO. In ITA Nos. 1160 & 1137/Mum/2017 5. The first issue relating to these appeals in ITA No. 1160 & 1137/Mum/2017 for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, is exactly identical, hence, we will take up the issue and facts from

TML DRIVELINES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 234C of the Act as per law. Accordingly, this issue is restored back to the file of the AO. In ITA Nos. 1160 & 1137/Mum/2017 5. The first issue relating to these appeals in ITA No. 1160 & 1137/Mum/2017 for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, is exactly identical, hence, we will take up the issue and facts from

ACIT 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. TML DRIVELINES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 234C of the Act as per law. Accordingly, this issue is restored back to the file of the AO. In ITA Nos. 1160 & 1137/Mum/2017 5. The first issue relating to these appeals in ITA No. 1160 & 1137/Mum/2017 for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, is exactly identical, hence, we will take up the issue and facts from

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,\n234B and 234C

EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY (INDIA)PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) Dcit, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [Pan No. Aaace1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

234C of the Act as per law and after considering the reliefs to be granted by your Honour in your Appellate Order. 14. Ground no. 14 - Penalty proceedings On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. The Appellant prays that