GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

depreciation of INR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. “3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs. 1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

depreciation. Looking to the nature of the advantage which the assessee obtained in a commercial sense, expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West 12 ITA NO. 803 & 850/MUM/2009

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

244A of the Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground nos. 6, 8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue

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

244A of the Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground nos. 6, 8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue

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

244A of the Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground nos. 6, 8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue

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

244A of the Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground nos. 6, 8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue

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

244A of the Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground nos. 6, 8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue

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

244A of the Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground nos. 6, 8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue

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

244A of the Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground nos. 6, 8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue

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

244A of the Act in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground nos. 6, 8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation on obsolete assets.” 12. Respectfully following the above decisions and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in previous Assessment Years are respectfully followed, ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 13. With regard to Ground No. 2 which is in respect of disallowance of Bad debts to the extent

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation on obsolete assets.” 12. Respectfully following the above decisions and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in previous Assessment Years are respectfully followed, ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 13. With regard to Ground No. 2 which is in respect of disallowance of Bad debts to the extent

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

depreciation of\nINR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are\nallowed.\n8.\nGround No. 3.\n\"3.\n3.1.\nDisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia)\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nCIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the\nliability of Rs.1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

2 with respect to the action of the Assessing Officer considering total turnover including taxes duties as against total turnover excluding taxes and duties while working out deduction under section 80HHC from the book profit. 3.(a) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting interest under section 244A

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

2 with respect to the action of the Assessing Officer considering total turnover including taxes duties as against total turnover excluding taxes and duties while working out deduction under section 80HHC from the book profit. 3.(a) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting interest under section 244A

J B ADVANI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.B Advani & Company Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,Ador House, 4Th Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, 6 K, Dubashmarg, Mumbai-400021. Kalghoda,Liongate,Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj1966D Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation for the current year, and therefore it can be set-off against business profits as well as against the income under any other head. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of learned AO and not appreciating that the issue is covered by favorable judicial precedents. Ground No. 2: The CIT(A) erred in not giving appropriate directions

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how and section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure on eligible projects or schemes and section 35AD deals with deduction

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how and section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure on eligible projects or schemes and section 35AD deals with deduction