STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 263\nof the IT Act.\n4. Depreciation on securities:\nThe depreciation on securities includes\ndepreciation on AFS, HFT & HTM\nsecurities

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

263 and therefore, there was no requirement of separately specifying separately specifying or invoking of Explanation or invoking of Explanation-2 in the show cause notice proposing cause notice proposing for revision of the assessment order. revision of the assessment order. He submitted that once the main section is quoted and such section is submitted that once the main section

LIVLONG INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

Section 263 of the Act.\"\n12.5 The co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of\nAgricom Foods Private Limited,Mumbai vs Principal\nCommissioner Of Income Tax dated 9.12.2024 in ITA\nNos.2709 & 2716/Mum/2024 held as below:\n“1. The Ld.PCIT, however, did not object the above said contentions of the assessee.\nHe cannot be considered as the enquiry

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\ndismissed

section 263, for which he was\nentitled. We, thus, in terms of aforesaid observations, do not find any\ninfirmity in the order of Ld. PCIT, thus, we are not supposed to interfere with\nthe same.\"\n9.9 The co-ordinate bench of ITAT,Mumbai in the case of\nAgricom Foods Private Limited, Mumbai VS Principal\nCommissioner Of Income Tax dated

APURVA NATVAR PARIKH & CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

section 263, for which he was\nentitled. We, thus, in terms of aforesaid observations, do not find any infirmity in the\norder of Ld. PCIT, thus, we are not supposed to interfere with the same.\"\n7.10 The co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of\nAgricom Foods Private Limited,Mumbai vs Principle\nCommissioner Of Income Tax dated

HAMPI EXPRESSWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiahampi Expressways Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Eliphinstone Building, 10 Income Tax -1, Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Vs. Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aadch 6031L

depreciation claimed by the assessee on the SCA. 4. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that learned PCIT has passed the order u/s. 263 of the Act without issuing a show cause notice and without even providing an opportunity of hearing as mandated under sub section

INDIABULLS COMMERCIAL CREDIT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 263, for which he was\nentitled. We, thus, in terms of aforesaid observations, do not find any infirmity in the\norder of Ld. PCIT, thus, we are not supposed to interfere with the same.\"\n6.12 The co-ordinate bench of ITAT,Mumbai in the case of\nAgricom Foods Private Limited,Mumbai\nVS Principle\nCommissioner Of Income Tax dated

ANTONY LARA ENVIRO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT- 1 , THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21

263 has been invoked by placing reliance on Explanation 2(b). placing reliance on Explanation 2(b). 4.5 On the other hand, the assessee has consistently maintained he other hand, the assessee has consistently maintained he other hand, the assessee has consistently maintained that the transition amount was duly computed in accordance with that the transition amount was duly computed

CRICKET CLUB OF INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

Accordingly, concise Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed while all the other grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous

263 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. According to the PCIT the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the issues listed in paragraph 2.5 of the aforesaid show cause notice and had failed to apply his mind to the relevant facts/issues. Thus, rendering the Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2015, for the Assessment Year 2012-13 passed under Section

PERFECT FILAMENTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid decision

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailperfect Filaments Limited, E-23/24/25/26, Commerce Centre, Tardeo Road Tulsi Wadi, S.O., ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aaacp4215F V/S Principal Commissiioner Of Income Tax-4 ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Mumbai, [“learned PCIT”], for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed u/s 263 is grossly arbitrary

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 263 (1). The non-consideration of the larger claim for Rs. 298.93 crores as depreciation and the consideration of only

SUDHIR VRUNDAVANDAS VALIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIR-20(1), MUMBAI

263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was asked by the PCIT to frame the fresh assessment on the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 3.3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before us on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. Since all the grounds are connected, the same are being taken up together hereinafter

B. ARUNKUMAR CAPITAL & CREDIT SERVICES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

263 corrected such prejudice caused to the\nRevenue administration.\n7. 2. We note that the decision of Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal\nrelied by the Ld.AR in case of First American (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.\nACIT in ITA No. 1762 of 2019, vide order dated 29.04.2020 dealt\nwith the applicability of section 80G by observing as under:\n11. Section

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

263 of the Act to revise the assessment order on the specific issue as to whether the tax rate applicable to LTCG in terms with section 112 of the Act can be applied to a depreciable

M/S. VERTIV ENERGY PVT. LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS EMERSON NETWORK POWER INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, THANE

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & & Vertiv Energy Private Limited V. Pcit-1 (Formerly Known As Emerson B Wing Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Road No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate Network Power India Pvt. Ltd) Thane (W) - 400604 Plot No. 20, Road No. 19 Wagle Ind. Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Pan: Aaact4033H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Dhanesh Bafna, Chandni Shah & Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Nimesh Yadav

depreciation on goodwill as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income and order under section 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Appellant prays that the order passed under section 263

VERTIV ENERGY PVT. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EMERSON NETWORK POWER (INDIA) P. LTD.,THANE (W) vs. PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX -1, THANE

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & & Vertiv Energy Private Limited V. Pcit-1 (Formerly Known As Emerson B Wing Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Road No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate Network Power India Pvt. Ltd) Thane (W) - 400604 Plot No. 20, Road No. 19 Wagle Ind. Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Pan: Aaact4033H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Dhanesh Bafna, Chandni Shah & Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Nimesh Yadav

depreciation on goodwill as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income and order under section 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Appellant prays that the order passed under section 263

VERTIV ENERGY PVT. LTD( FORMERLY KNOWN AS EMERSON NETWORK POWER INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, THANE

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & & Vertiv Energy Private Limited V. Pcit-1 (Formerly Known As Emerson B Wing Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Road No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate Network Power India Pvt. Ltd) Thane (W) - 400604 Plot No. 20, Road No. 19 Wagle Ind. Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Pan: Aaact4033H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Dhanesh Bafna, Chandni Shah & Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Nimesh Yadav

depreciation on goodwill as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income and order under section 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Appellant prays that the order passed under section 263

MARTIN AND HARRIS LABORATORIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PCIT), AAYKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI-400020

In the result, the present appeal by the Assessee is allowed

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken. Sub-section (6) of the section 801C provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under this section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

depreciation of investments so it was required to be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The AO has not verified this amount. During hearing before us, nothing was shown to us that this issue was examined by the learned assessing officer. Therefore, this issue is squarely covered by the explanation 2 to section 263