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 ()

7.—Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, any capital Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, any capital asset is transferred by the amalgamating company to the asset is transferred by the amalgamating company to the asset is transferred by the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company and the amalgamated company is an amalgamated company and the amalgamated company

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 ()

7.—Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, any capital Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, any capital asset is transferred by the amalgamating company to the asset is transferred by the amalgamating company to the asset is transferred by the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company and the amalgamated company is an amalgamated company and the amalgamated company

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 ()

7.—Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, any capital Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, any capital asset is transferred by the amalgamating company to the asset is transferred by the amalgamating company to the asset is transferred by the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company and the amalgamated company is an amalgamated company and the amalgamated company

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

depreciation and sales lax incentive claim , 4 154 06-03-2017 To withdraw allowance of mark to market loss on account of derivatives pursuant to ITAT order of AY 2008-09 5 154 30-11-2018 Impugned order making addition of interest on Income Tax refund and pre operative income u/s 115JB 12. Further submissions on this issue

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

7 to section 43(1) and Explanation 2(6) to section\n43(6) of the Act in a similar factual matrix wherein the goodwill as claimed by the\ntaxpayer represents the difference between the purchase consideration and value of\nthe net assets acquired on amalgamation, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in\nUrmin Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’): “(a) Whether cost of shares allotted to members of Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) pursuant to its corporatisation/de-mutualisation would be calculated as per section 50 or section 55(2)(ab) if depreciation was claimed on BSE membership? (b) Whether indexation benefit on sale of such share would

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Idea Cellular Limited Principal Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Income Tax-14, Century Mills Compound, 469, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacb2100P

depreciation was claimed by the assessee under section 32(l) of the Act on the cost of 3G Spectrum and allowed by the AO. Ld. Counsel explained that Wireless spectrum in the context of telecom industry refers to electromagnetic radiation and frequency bands. The wireless Spectrum frequencies used in communication regulated by the national organizations, which specify which frequency ranges

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

7. As regards ground No. 2, raised in assessee’s appeal, we find that similar findings were upheld by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in Reliance Industries Ltd vs ACIT, in ITA No. 7299/Mum/2017, vide order dated 10/11/2020, for assessment year 2013 – 14, by observing as under: ―22. As regards disallowance for other expenses

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

7. As regards ground No. 2, raised in assessee’s appeal, we find that similar findings were upheld by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in Reliance Industries Ltd vs ACIT, in ITA No. 7299/Mum/2017, vide order dated 10/11/2020, for assessment year 2013 – 14, by observing as under: ―22. As regards disallowance for other expenses

HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S.Huntsman International (India) Private Limited, B-Wing, Lighthall, Hiranandani Business Park, Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai 400 072 Pan: Aaach9149J ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent The Dcit, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. ..... Appellant

7 382/mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) therein, namely, know-how, patents, copy rights, trademarks, licence or franchisees. On this basis, it is sought to be pointed out that the claim of the assessee was rightly denied by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order. 5.2 On the other hand, Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the dispute