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

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. KHANNA HOTEL P.LTD, MUMBAI

254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य,राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार -Per Rajendra,AM: लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging the order,dated 11/12/2012

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

depreciation on goodwill on merits. 4.6 In the second round, the AO passed a draft assessment order In the second round, the AO passed a draft assessment order In the second round, the AO passed a draft assessment order dated 31 March 2022 under section 143(3) read with section 254

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

254 dt. 24- 08- 2017 by the ld. Assessing Officer is barred by limitation, void ab initio, invalid and bad in law. ITA No.521/M/2019 & ors. 40 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. & ors. 2) Without prejudice, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation against

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

254 dt. 24- 08- 2017 by the ld. Assessing Officer is barred by limitation, void ab initio, invalid and bad in law. ITA No.521/M/2019 & ors. 40 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. & ors. 2) Without prejudice, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation against

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

254 dt. 24- 08- 2017 by the ld. Assessing Officer is barred by limitation, void ab initio, invalid and bad in law. ITA No.521/M/2019 & ors. 40 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. & ors. 2) Without prejudice, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation against

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

254 dt. 24- 08- 2017 by the ld. Assessing Officer is barred by limitation, void ab initio, invalid and bad in law. ITA No.521/M/2019 & ors. 40 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. & ors. 2) Without prejudice, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation against

HEMANT KUMAR GODARA vs. ASST CIT 15(1),

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4185/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Shri Hemant Kumar Godara, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax E-1, Oidc Ringanwada, 15(1), Vs. Daman (Ut)- Mumbai. Pin-396210 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

depreciation on machinery. In respect of all these additions, the assessing officer followed the assessment order for assessment year 2003-04, wherein identical disallowances had been made. 3. The assessee preferred appeal for AY 2003-04 before Ld CIT(A) and then to the ITAT. The Tribunal, vide is order dated 25-11-2008 passed in ITA No.7144/Mum/2006, restored

MANGLA INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

254", "144", "115-JA" ], "issues": "The primary issue was the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Secondary issues concerned the disallowance of expenses and claims for depreciation

MANGLA INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

depreciation on flat, which was not in\npossession of the assessee, was disallowed, and car rental income was\nadded to the total income of the assessee, proceedings under section 147 of\nthe Act were initiated, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to\nthe assessee on 13/12/2005. Thereafter, statutory notices under section\n143(2) and section

MANGLA INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

depreciation on flat, which was not in\npossession of the assessee, was disallowed, and car rental income was\nadded to the total income of the assessee, proceedings under section 147 of\nthe Act were initiated, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to\nthe assessee on 13/12/2005. Thereafter, statutory notices under section\n143(2) and section

MANGLA INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

depreciation on flat, which was not in\npossession of the assessee, was disallowed, and car rental income was\nadded to the total income of the assessee, proceedings under section 147 of\nthe Act were initiated, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to\nthe assessee on 13/12/2005. Thereafter, statutory notices under section\n143(2) and section

VALECHA BADWANI SENDHWA TOLLWAYS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhvalecha Badwani Sendhwa Pcit-11 Tollways Ltd. 4Th Floor, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Valecha Chambers, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv6105B Appellant Respondent Valecha Lm Tools Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-11 4Th Floor, Valecha Chambers, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri New Link Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv2787M Appellant Respondent : Shri Sumant Chadha With Appellant By Mr. Jitendra Trivedi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019

254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeal by two different assessee are directed against the order of ld. Principle Commissioner of Income-tax-(11) dated 21.02.2018 and 27.03.2018 passed under section 263 of Income-Tax Act. Both the appeal relates to assessment year 2013-14. In both the appeals relate

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation on the cost of membership card in the earlier years. 12 ITA No.1588/M/2012 & ors. M/s. KJMC Capital Market Services Ltd. 35. As regards the period of holding of shares of BSE Ltd., I find that as per clause (ha) inserted in Explanation 1 to Section 2(42A) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2003, period for which

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation of Rs. 30,19,657/- u/s. 32(1)(iia). 8. The appellant prays for the cost of this appeal in view of section 254

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation of Rs. 30,19,657/- u/s. 32(1)(iia). 8. The appellant prays for the cost of this appeal in view of section 254

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

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

depreciation of Rs.234,59,26,810/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to submit details of commission and discount given to dealers and tax deducted on the same. On perusal of the details furnished by the assessee, the ld. AO observed that assessee had deducted tax at source for the commission payments made