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 ()

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

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 ()

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

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 ()

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

DCIT (E), MUMBAI vs. VIDYA VIKAS EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and C

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as [‘the Act’] for the Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. We shall take up ITA No. 1609/Mum/2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 as lead case. The Revenue has raised the common grounds of appeal for both the AYs which are as under: 1. "Whether on facts and circumstances

AMIT BHOLANATH MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 22(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramit Bholanath Mishra Acit Circle 22(1), 502, Heena Elegance, Piramal Chamber, Saibaba Nagar, Borivali Vs. Lal Baug, Parel, (West), Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aampm3121G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2026

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the assessment year 2016–17arising out of assessment framed by way of an order 2 Amit Bholanath Mishra dated 28.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer”] under section

FAYZ E HUSAYNI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NAFC) DELHI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

depreciation in subsequent years, reinforcing the argument of inadvertence.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 11(6)", "Section 143(2)", "Section 142(1)", "Section 270A", "Section 274", "Section 139", "Section 250

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

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, MUMBAI

section 250(6) of\nthe Act as well as the principles of natural justice.\n9.\nConsidering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we\nare of the view that the issues raised by the assessee in the\nadditional grounds require proper examination and adjudication at\nthe level of the first appellate authority. Accordingly, in the interest\nof justice

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

section 250(6) of the Act as well as the principles of natural justice. 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the issues raised by the assessee in the additional grounds require proper examination and adjudication at the level of the first appellate authority. Accordingly, in the interest of justice

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.08.2015 for AY 2011-12. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: "(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,84,29,954/- on account of bogus purchases made

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

250 6,80,23,443 depreciable assets Land (non- 43,90,76,57,51 Nil Nil 43,90,76,57,51 depreciable) 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer reduced the actual cost of buildings from Rs. 217,95,82,895/- as claimed by the assessee to Rs. 31,25,79,075/- and restricted depreciation on buildings

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

250 6,80,23,443 depreciable assets Land (non- 43,90,76,57,51 Nil Nil 43,90,76,57,51 depreciable) 16. Thus, the Assessing Officer reduced the actual cost of buildings from Rs. 217,95,82,895/- as claimed by the assessee to Rs. 31,25,79,075/- and restricted depreciation on buildings

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).

6)(c)(i)(B) of the Act, the written down value in the case of any block of assets is reduced by the money payable when the asset is sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed. However, in the present case, the assessee continued to own this property, and the same was only let out during the year