TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

25. Thus, sequitur of aforesaid judgment is that the fiction created by the legislature in Section 50 of the Act has to be confined to the purpose for which it is created. Section 50 of the Act was enacted with the object of denying multiple benefits to the owners of a depreciable

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/- for AY 2010-11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we direct AO to grant the assessee claim of depreciation @ 25

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/- for AY 2010-11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we direct AO to grant the assessee claim of depreciation @ 25

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/- for AY 2010-11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we direct AO to grant the assessee claim of depreciation @ 25

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/- for AY 2010-11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we direct AO to grant the assessee claim of depreciation @ 25

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/- for AY 2010-11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we direct AO to grant the assessee claim of depreciation @ 25

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/- for AY 2010-11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we direct AO to grant the assessee claim of depreciation @ 25

M/S ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/- for AY 2010-11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we direct AO to grant the assessee claim of depreciation @ 25

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/- for AY 2010-11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we direct AO to grant the assessee claim of depreciation @ 25

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and allowed ground no.2 of Cross Objection wherein assessee prayed for grant of depreciation of Rs. 215,72,80,138/- for AY 2010-11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we direct AO to grant the assessee claim of depreciation @ 25

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 263 called for the assessment records and came to the conclusion that, the assessment order passed was prima facie erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue, primarily on the ground that assessee has claimed depreciation of 25

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 263 called for the assessment records and came to the conclusion that, the assessment order passed was prima facie erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue, primarily on the ground that assessee has claimed depreciation of 25

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 263 called for the assessment records and came to the conclusion that, the assessment order passed was prima facie erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue, primarily on the ground that assessee has claimed depreciation of 25

V HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 263 called for the assessment records and came to the conclusion that, the assessment order passed was prima facie erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue, primarily on the ground that assessee has claimed depreciation of 25

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD ( FORMELRY TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 263 called for the assessment records and came to the conclusion that, the assessment order passed was prima facie erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue, primarily on the ground that assessee has claimed depreciation of 25

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 263 called for the assessment records and came to the conclusion that, the assessment order passed was prima facie erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue, primarily on the ground that assessee has claimed depreciation of 25

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. V. HOTELS LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS TULIP HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 263 called for the assessment records and came to the conclusion that, the assessment order passed was prima facie erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue, primarily on the ground that assessee has claimed depreciation of 25

VODAFONE IDEA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -5, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

25% on the spectrum fees paid by treating it as ‘intangible asset’, which was allowed by the AO under section 32 of the Act. 3. However, the Ld. PCIT by invoking the revisionary jurisdiction called upon the assessee company by way of issuance of notice under section 263 of the Act, as to why the spectrum fee claimed as depreciation