ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

253 ITR 534, the authorized officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3) so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). However, the situation would be different where a prohibitory order under section 132(3) is issued because such order, unlike- a restraint order

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

Depreciation. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said disallowance made by the Ld. A.O. is incorrect and invalid and ought to be deleted. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A. O. erred in making an addition

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 of Income –tax Act, before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal. 1

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 of Income –tax Act, before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal. 1

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\nParticulars\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\nInterest on Deposits\nAmount (Rs.)\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176

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

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. …… 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

253 (SC) held that, subsidy had not been granted for construction but only after setting up of a new industry which was in the nature of assistance given for the purpose of carrying on business. …… 8. In the present appeal also, as noted, the subsidy was granted under schemes framed by the State and the Central Government, to be given

ADDL CIT CEN CIR IX, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

depreciation of the current year. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P.) Ltd. (2003) 253 ITR 77 (Mad.), Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 721 (Ker.), the Hon’ble J & K. High Court in CIT vs Agya Wanti

DCIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

depreciation of the current year. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P.) Ltd. (2003) 253 ITR 77 (Mad.), Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 721 (Ker.), the Hon’ble J & K. High Court in CIT vs Agya Wanti

ACIT CEN CIR CIR-34, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

depreciation of the current year. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P.) Ltd. (2003) 253 ITR 77 (Mad.), Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 721 (Ker.), the Hon’ble J & K. High Court in CIT vs Agya Wanti

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\n1\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\n2\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\n3\nInterest on Deposits\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\n1\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\nInterest on Deposits\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\n1\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\n2\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\n3\nInterest on Deposits\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\n1\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\n2\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\n3\nInterest on Deposits\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

1)(viii), i.e., at a figure of Rs.99,25,79,867/-.\n1\nInterest on Loans\nHousing Loans\nInterest on Loans Against Deposits\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees and\ncommitment Charges\nPrepayment Charges\nAPF Fees\nDishonoured Cheque Charges\nDraft Agreement Charges\nInterest on Deposits\n10,167,313,229\n34,392,439\n5,21,253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484

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).

depreciation of INR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. “3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs. 1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation which have been adopted\nfor preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such\nfinancial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant\nprevious year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than\nreferred to in Clause (b). According to clause