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

depreciation and amortization to arrive at average of total assets while disallowing the proportionate interest expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rule; ii. to consider total turnover excluding taxes and duties while computing deduction under section 80HHC from book profit. ITA Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 A.Ys

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: “Explanation 2.— —Where in any previous year, any block of assets is Where in any previous year, any block of assets is transferred

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

depreciation of INR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. "3. 3.1. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 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 applying

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

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

244A by first adjusting the amount of refund already granted towards the interest component and balance left if any shall be adjusted towards the tax component. Thus, with these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India 5. We find that this decision of the Coordinate Bench has been

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

244A by first adjusting the amount of refund already granted towards the interest component and balance left if any shall be adjusted towards the tax component. Thus, with these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India 5. We find that this decision of the Coordinate Bench has been

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

244A by first adjusting the amount of refund already granted towards the interest component and balance left if any shall be adjusted towards the tax component. Thus, with these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India 5. We find that this decision of the Coordinate Bench has been

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

244A by first adjusting the amount of refund already granted towards the interest component and balance left if any shall be adjusted towards the tax component. Thus, with these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India 5. We find that this decision of the Coordinate Bench has been

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

244A by first adjusting the amount of refund already granted towards the interest component and balance left if any shall be adjusted towards the tax component. Thus, with these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India 5. We find that this decision of the Coordinate Bench has been

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

244A by first adjusting the amount of refund already granted towards the interest component and balance left if any shall be adjusted towards the tax component. Thus, with these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India 5. We find that this decision of the Coordinate Bench has been

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

244A by first adjusting the amount of refund already granted towards the interest component and balance left if any shall be adjusted towards the tax component. Thus, with these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India 5. We find that this decision of the Coordinate Bench has been

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

section 244A of the Act. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute the above grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation claimed by the Appellant under section 32(1) of the Act on the one-time expenditure incurred by the Appellant on acquisition of 36 spectrum amounting to INK 4,08,01,38,956. 3.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while the learned DRP/AO has clearly held that one-time expenditure incurred

TATA COMMUNICATIONS PAYMENT SOLUTIONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3) (1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Tata Communications Payment The Dcit, Solutions Ltd. Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No.C21 & C36, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb3924G Assessee By : Shri Heman Desai & Shri Kaikobad Damania, Ars’ Revenue By : Shri Amol Kirtane, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022

depreciation as per the provision of Section 32(2) and Section 72 of the Act. Assessee is also aggrieved with the order of learned Assessing Officer as not granting the interest under Section 244A

HEMANT JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Commissioner (Appeals} & Rs. 500 Before This Honorable Tribunal Because The Appellant Has Been Compelled To Pay Them For Dereliction Of Duty By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals} - 4, Delhi & The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. The Appellant Is Entitled To This Refund In Terms Of Sections 240 & 244A, Read With Section 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Without Prejudice & In The Alternative, If Not Appeal Filing Fees, Then The Appellant May Be Awarded The Cost Of Rs. 1,500 Towards Filing Of This Appeal.

244A, read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Without prejudice and in the alternative, if not appeal filing fees, then the appellant may be awarded the cost of Rs. 1,500 towards filing of this appeal. 3. The brief facts are that assessee has filed original return for A.Y.2018-19 electronically on 30/08/2018 declaring total income

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

In the results, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Everest Industries Ltd. 2303, Fairfield-A, Majhiwada Bridge, Thane (West)-400601 Pan: Aaace7550N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent

depreciation brought forward from earlier years. 4. Case was selected for scrutiny and assessed u/s 143(3) at Rs 71, 38, 90,910/- by making various disallowances under the normal provisions of the Act. However in the said order AO did not compute income under the provisions of section 115JB. Aggrieved with the order the appellant filed an appeal before

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

244A has been done in such a manner that it has led to double taxation, as on date. We feel that the role of the income tax authorities, under the law, is to make fair assessment of income and determine tax payable thereon. No tax can be 34 Pfizer Limited collected except with the authority of law, as per clear