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 long term capital asset, whether the assessee can be denied exemption under section 54E merely because, section 50 provides that the computation of such capital gains should be done as if arising from the transfer of short term capital asset? 24

ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above

24)(xviii) of amended Act.\n6. 10. In the present case, there is a ‘benefit' because the appellant company\nis paying the reduced amount to the Government as compared to the actual\nsales tax collected from its customers over a period of 10 years. Thus the\nwaiver amount of Rs.90,22,491/- comes within the ambit of section

DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. SOLVAY SPECIALITIES INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

depreciation cost claimed by the assessee in accordance with Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the IT Rules, 1962. 8. The Ld AO / TPO / Ld DRP has erred in rejecting the plea of the assessee to compare the profitability of the assessee and comparables at EBDITA level. 9. The Ld AO / TPO / Ld DRP has erred in rejecting the economic

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

depreciable long term capital asset, whether the assessee can be denied exemption under section 54E merely because, section 50 18 Reliance Transport & Travels Pvt. Ltd. provides that the computation of such capital gains should be done as if arising from the transfer of short term capital asset ? 24

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

section 32(2) of the IT Act and consequently they ought\nto have held that unabsorbed depreciation of AY 2008-09 is allowable as a\ndeduction against current year's income.\n7.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nDCIT and Hon'ble DRP erred in not allowing brought forward and consequent

M/S. SKYLINE PRASHAASTI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1964/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Skyline Prashasti Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As M/S Sky Star) Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Nr. Vidyavihar Aaykar Bhawan, Station, Ghatkoper (W) Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400086 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2451/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Skyline Prashasti Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Vidyavihar (W) Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai – 400086 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation @ 8% of the work in progress. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the decision of Assessing Officer for disallowing proportionate interest expenditure and municipal taxes of Rs.1,11,97,219/- and Rs.20,10,237/- which is in proportion to the non let out area, while calculating 'income form House

DCIT ,CC 8(2), MUMBAI vs. SKYLINE PRASHASTI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1964/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Skyline Prashasti Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As M/S Sky Star) Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Nr. Vidyavihar Aaykar Bhawan, Station, Ghatkoper (W) Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400086 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2451/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Skyline Prashasti Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Vidyavihar (W) Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai – 400086 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation @ 8% of the work in progress. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the decision of Assessing Officer for disallowing proportionate interest expenditure and municipal taxes of Rs.1,11,97,219/- and Rs.20,10,237/- which is in proportion to the non let out area, while calculating 'income form House

SHETH CREATORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH CREATORS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

SHETH CREATORS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

SHETH CREATORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENT. CIR-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

SHETH CREATORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. 3. The appellant prays that: 3. The appellant prays that: a. Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/ Disallowance of Rs. 84,36,022/- on account of 20% Depreciation

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

section 32(1), the assessee being amalgamated company, could not claim or be allowed to claim, depreciation on assets acquire in a scheme of amalgamation more than depreciation that was allowable to amalgamating company. This ratio duly applies to the present case inasmuch as here we have a succession of firm by the assessee company and hence the claim

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

24)(ix) of the Act and other relevant statutory provisions. He argued that the Act had to be read as a whole. The ld AR before us drew our attention to various statutory provisions relevant to address the issue in dispute prior to amendments thereon and also the scenario post amendment together with the purpose of the amendment, as under

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

24,905/-, being the difference between the sale consideration actually received on transfer of an office property and the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. It was contended by the assessee that for the purposes of section 43(6)(c) of the Act, only the actual consideration received on sale of depreciable

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JT/ACIT/NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

24 of the General Clauses Act, the construction of the said expression in both sections would, therefore, include within it “omissions” made by the legislature. 38 12.6 The Court was also of the view that merely because the Constitution Bench in case of Rayala Corporation referred to a repeal not amounting to an omission this would not undo the effect

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

depreciation under section 32. Consequently, the same income stream cannot simultaneously be subjected to the provisions governing both heads for the purpose of claiming deductions. 7.2. In the present case, the assessee has offered the rental income under the head “Income from House Property” and claimed the 8 I.T.A. No. 6023/Mum/2025 statutory deduction under section 24

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciation vis-à-vis the amount in the question has not examined the provisions of section 35ABB of the Act. 24

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAOGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

depreciation on the property, while also permitting deduction under section 24 in respect of income from house property, would result