DCIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDILA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1491/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 9(2)(2) Credila Financial Services R.No. 665A, 6 T H Floor, Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, B-301 Citi Point, V. Mumbai-400020 Next To Kohinoor Continental Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccc8789P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

depreciation relating to earlier years could not be denied. 3. The Assessee may be allowed to carry forward brought forward loss relating to AY 2007-08 to 2009-10 since the provisions of section 79 of IT Act has no application to it. 4. The Assessee may be allowed to carry forward brought forward loss relating

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD,ORRISSA vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

depreciation on the basis of decision of Tribunal in case of Mumbai Tribunal in West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. dated 27th February, 2013. Hence, aggrieved, the Revenue has filed the present appeal under section 253

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THIRVANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

depreciation on the basis of decision of Tribunal in case of Mumbai Tribunal in West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. dated 27th February, 2013. Hence, aggrieved, the Revenue has filed the present appeal under section 253

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

253 of the Act, against the order dated 25\nOctober 2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax on the following\ngrounds, which are independent of and without prejudice to each other.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO\n/ learned Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned

WEST GUJARAT EXDPRESS WAY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 253(3) of the Act, the assessee was required to file appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of order. However, the assessee filed appeal, for the year under consideration, on 31/03/2021, while the Revenue filed the appeal on 30/12/2021. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10/01/2022, passed in M.A. no.21

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. WEST GUJARAT EXPRESS WAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 253(3) of the Act, the assessee was required to file appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of order. However, the assessee filed appeal, for the year under consideration, on 31/03/2021, while the Revenue filed the appeal on 30/12/2021. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10/01/2022, passed in M.A. no.21

NEXGENIX (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

253(5) of the Act is not automatic. What constitutes sufficient cause may vary from case–to–case and will depend upon the facts involved in a particular case. Therefore, no straight jacket formula can be applied for condonation of delay. Keeping in perspective the aforesaid legal position, we have to examine the facts of the present case and find

MAHESHWARI PRAGATI MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemaheshwari Pragati Mandal V. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre 2Nd Floor Maheshwari Bhavan Delhi Girgaon Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aaatm0226G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11 of the Act and again when depreciation on this asset is claimed it would amount to double claim in the form of application of income. When the capital asset is written off in the books, there is no asset pending in the books for claiming depreciation allowance. Such double deduction is not provided for in the Act. Page

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 on spectrum 4,08,01,38,956 fees Total Disallowances 9,62,14,04,426 Taxable income under the head business or 2,16,66,85,561 profession Income from Other Sources (as per revised computation) Interest on fixed deposit 4,19,03,514 4,19,03,514 Total income 25,09,29,739 Total Income

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYERS P.LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Goodyear South Asia Tyres- Private Limited, H-18, Midc Industrial Area, Waluj , Aurangabad- 431136 Pan: Aabcg 5544P ...... Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1, Jeevan Suman, Lic Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Cannought Place, Town Centre, N-5, Cidco, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad - 431003 .... Respondent

Section 32(1) of the Act, in order to be entitled to claim depreciation, the asset is to be owned by the assessee and it is also to be used for the purpose of business or profession. However, the expression "used for the purpose of business" when applied to block asset would mean use of block asset

EVEREST INDUSTIRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

section 32(1) inter alia provides that the additional depreciation would be restricted to 50% when the new plant or machinery acquired and installed by the assessee, is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in the previous year. Non-availability of full 100% of additional

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON MANAGEMENT (INDIA) P.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -RANGE-6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Franklin Templeton Dy. Cit–Range 6(3)(1) Management (India) P. Ltd. Room No.506, 5 Th Floor, 12Th& 13Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, India Bulls Finance Center, Vs. Tower–2, Senapati Bapat M.K. Road, Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaact1609B Assessee By : Shri Farooq Irani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vrinda U Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.10.2022

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) against the order dated 28 August 2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax- (Appeals) 12, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the learned CIT(A)), under section 250 of the Act, on the following grounds: Ground No. 1: Disallowance of claim of depreciation

DCIT - 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATLANTA INFRA ASSETS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dy. Commisioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Atlanta Infra Assets Limited Tax – 9(1)(2) 101, Shree Amba Shanti Room No.260A, Chambers Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccb7416Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Co No.19/Mum/2018 M/S. Atlanta Infra Assets Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 101, Shree Amba Shanti Chambers Tax – 9(1)(2) Andheri Kurla Road Room No.260A, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccb7416Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri H.N. Singh Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta Date Of Hearing 13/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2018

253) which clearly lays down the law that subsidy received by the assessee for meeting the operational expenses are of the revenue in nature?" iii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the version of the assessee that the subsidy received from NHAI is towards "Equity Contribution" when

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LTD. WHICH STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS IDEA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE- 5 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation on 261,29,65,700 spectrum fees (v) On account of payment to IBM 14,66,83,051 (vi) Less: Allowance u/s.40(a)(ia) for amount paid u/s 201(1) as per the direction of DRP (-)15,00,00,000 730,66,64,771 Taxable Income under the head 245,40,48,854 business or profession II. Income from

VIACOM 18, MEDIA PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation of goodwill does not apply to the\ndepreciation assets in Voot platform. In view of principle of\nconsistency also the action of the Ld. PCIT is not justified.\n\n11. The next issue relate to denying carry forward of losses to\nsubsequent assessment years. The facts qua the dispute are that\nduring the year under consideration, the assessee claimed

VISTA ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 143(3) of the Act was originally passed on 10th December 2010 determining the total income at ` 8,36,49,253. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer being of the opinion that in view of subsidy on entertainment tax granted by the State Government the cost of acquisition of all the assets on which the assessee has claimed depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Ito -13(3)(3) M/S. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2Nd Floor Spec House, V. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacv2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 4813/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 24.04.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/Ito-13(3)(3)/It-107/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

section 32(2) were amended by Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 1st April 2002, that by the said amendment position as existed prior to 01.04.1997 was restored, that up to AY 1996-97 unabsorbed depreciation of the previous year was treated as current years depreciation that same was allowed to be set off against the income from any other head, that

ITO 15(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KELLOGG INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee, is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthy

depreciation of the earlier year. The assessee succeeds on ground No.3 of the appeal. 10. In ground No.4 of the appeal, the assessee has assailed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground of appeal is premature at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee