ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

depreciation of Goodwill Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 16,65,932 Disallowance due to non 64,45,907 deduction of TDS of foreign Parties Delayed payment of ES1C 1,74,35,513 & PF 228,64,99,895 Less Deduction Deduction u/s 10A A 12,65,12,187 Total Income 215,99,87,708 9 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation amounting to Rs 10,76,38,455 made in accordance with the provisions of section 32 of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

IDBI BANK LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF THE UNITED WESTERN BANK LTD),MUMBA vs. ASST CIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dismissing The Appeal I.E. Whether Said Order Complied With Direction Of Cit U/S.264 Or Ao Exceeded His Jurisdiction While Passing The Impugned Order. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That Whereas Ld. Cit In His Order U/S.264 Dated 23.03.2015 Directed The Ao To Treat Return Of Income Filed As A Valid Return, Ao In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 Purportedly Giving Effect To The Direction, In Actual Exceeded The Direction & Made Additions Beyond Jurisdiction As To Time Limit & Issue Of Notice. Hence, The Order Of Ao Is Appealable & Cannot Be Brushed Aside As Non-Maintainable Appeal.

depreciation on printers / computers - Rs. 29,60,059/- (iv) Disallowance on account of Earlier expenses - Rs. 1,89,648/- (v) Disallowance u/s.40A(9) Of the Act - Rs. 3,01,180/- 3.1. The ld. AO in the final paragraph of the order dated 31/12/2009 stated that the aforesaid disallowances / additions are not made since the return was held

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

depreciation from the book profits • increasing the book profits by the amount of disallowance made u/s. 14A. 13. Levy of the interest u/s. 234B of the Act. 14. Levy of the interest u/s. 234D of the Act. 15. Credit for TDS considered short by Rs. 45,06,609/- 16. Credit for tax paid on self-assessment not granted

ETERNIS FINE CHEMICALS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy. Sassessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Eternis Fine Chemicals Ltd., The Cit(Appeals), B 1004, Peninsula Tower, Nfac, Peninsula Corporate Park, Mumbai. G.K.Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400 013. [Pan: Aaach 3757 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation amounting to Rs. 42,30,341/- and addition made by the Ld. AO ought to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or rescind any grounds of appeal during the A course of the hearing. 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: the assessee is into manufacturing

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

246A of the Act. The order of the learned CIT (A) ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 is correct. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Arun Muchala vs. CIT, wherein it has been held that assessee cannot be allowed

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

246A of the Act. The order of the learned CIT (A) ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 is correct. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Arun Muchala vs. CIT, wherein it has been held that assessee cannot be allowed

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

246A of the Act. The order of the learned CIT (A) ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 is correct. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Arun Muchala vs. CIT, wherein it has been held that assessee cannot be allowed

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

246A of the Act. The order of the learned CIT (A) ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 is correct. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Arun Muchala vs. CIT, wherein it has been held that assessee cannot be allowed

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

246A of the Act. The order of the learned CIT (A) ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 is correct. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Arun Muchala vs. CIT, wherein it has been held that assessee cannot be allowed

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

246A of the Act. The order of the learned CIT (A) ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 is correct. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Arun Muchala vs. CIT, wherein it has been held that assessee cannot be allowed

M/S HYDRO AIR RECTONICS (PCD) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 2 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Hydro Air Tectonics (Pcd) Dcit, Central Circle 2(1) Limited, 301/302, Belapur Vs. 8Th Floor, Room No. 804, Old Concorde Premises Chs, Cgo Building, Pratishtha Plot No. 66A, Sector- 44, Behind Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vijaya Bank, Cbd, Belapur, Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 614 Pan No. Aaach9686C (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2021

Depreciation 7,09,96,109 Disallowance u/s 14A 53,66,997 Dividend 5,000 Penalty 35,688 8,49,66,338 Total 3,00,63,976 Rounded off 3,00,63,980 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O u/s 144, dated 10.02.2016 before the CIT(A). However, as the assessee failed to appear before

TAURIAN IRON & STEEL CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

depreciation on the assets under lease transaction in accordance with section 32 of the Act. Ground No. 7: Disallowance of loss on forward exchanje contract- Rs. 2,62,65,930/-. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A. 0 of disallowing

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSEMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

depreciation of Rs. 22,82,480/- brought forward from earlier years. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to grant credit of TDS of Rs. 9,30,493/- of two companies, which had amalgamated with the appellant w.e.f. 01.04.2017 ITA No.3227/MUM/2022, 257,256/MUM/2023 A.Y.2018-19, 19-20 & 20-21 CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

depreciation of Rs. 22,82,480/- brought forward from earlier years. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to grant credit of TDS of Rs. 9,30,493/- of two companies, which had amalgamated with the appellant w.e.f. 01.04.2017 ITA No.3227/MUM/2022, 257,256/MUM/2023 A.Y.2018-19, 19-20 & 20-21 CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES

CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC/ ASST COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

depreciation of Rs. 22,82,480/- brought forward from earlier years. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to grant credit of TDS of Rs. 9,30,493/- of two companies, which had amalgamated with the appellant w.e.f. 01.04.2017 ITA No.3227/MUM/2022, 257,256/MUM/2023 A.Y.2018-19, 19-20 & 20-21 CALIBEHR BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Island Star Mall Developers Commissioner Of Income-Tax Private Limited (Appeals), Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Delhi Ground Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg, Circle 6(1)(2), 5 Th Floor, R. Vs. Shree Laxmi Woollen Mills No. 506, Aaykar Bhavan, Estate, Mumbai Mumbai-400 011 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aabci4988F Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

246A of the Act and thereby dismissing the grounds raised by the appellant against the order u/s 154 of the Act without considering the fact that the order was served on 28.02.2019 and the appellant had filed the appeal within thirty days i.e. on 28.03.2019 as duly prescribed and covered under Section 249(2)(c) of the Act. Thus

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 35(2AB) then, deduction available\nto the extent of 100% of revenue and capital expenditure must be\nallowed under section 35(a)(i) and 35(1)(iv) of the Act respectively.\nAssessee provided working for the quantum of deduction for this\nalternative claim so as to restrict it to Rs.2,60,79,526/- instead