HAZARIBAGH RANCHI EXPRESSWAY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

depreciation on the road as a tangible asset was also rejected, following decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 32(1)(ii)", "Section 250", "Section 143(3)", "Section 92CA(4

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 18.12.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. The assessee and revenue raised the following grounds: ITA No. 261/Mum/2025 – Assessee Ground I: Disallowance of Rs 3,72,00,210 under section 40(a)(ia) being 30% of the payment made under Consent Terms on account of alleged non- deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act 32(2) of the Act Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing t of opportunity

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act 32(2) of the Act Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing t of opportunity

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

depreciation as they are consequential and statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section statutorily available as per provisions of section 72 read with section 32(2) of the Act 32(2) of the Act Non- grant of opportunity of virtual hearing t of opportunity

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 80IA(8) of the Act, where any goods or services held for the purposes of the eligible business are transferred to any other business carried on by the assessee, or where any goods or services held for the purposes of any other business carried on by the assessee are transferred to the eligible business and, in either case

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

4) u/s. 47A was inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 01/04/2011. 4.3 Nowcoming back to the issues raised by the Ld.AR reproduce here in above,a query was raised by the bench, as to why,these were raisedto consider whether the assessee satisfies the requirement u/s.47(xiiib) of the Act, in order to, claim exemption from capital gain

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act'), by the\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre,\nDelhi ['CIT(A)] in the appeal filed against the assessment order dated 26\nDecember 2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, on the\nfollowing grounds, each of which are without prejudice to one another.\n1. Disallowance

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(the Act) dated 18.12.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. The assessee and\nrevenue raised the following grounds:\nITA No. 261/Mum/2025 – Assessee\nGround I: Disallowance of Rs 3,72,00,210 under section 40(a)(ia) being 30%\nof the payment made under Consent Terms on account of alleged non-\ndeduction

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

250 on between Vijayawada and Vishakhapatnam section on National Highway no.5, otherwise known as Rajahmundry Dharmabharam Tuni Toll Road, a 53 kms. Stretch of road on BOT basis. He submitted, on an application made by the assessee, the Central Government has approved the assessee under section 10(23G) of the Act as an eligible company engaged in development of infrastructure

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries