SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciable asset, however, while granting exemption under Section 54E of the Act, which is applicable for Long term capital gains, the jurisdictional High Court has held that for the purpose of exemption under Section 54E of the Act, it has to be treated as Long term capital gains. 26. In Para 26 of the aforesaid judgment as highlighted in bold

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

section with effect from 01/04/1997 and from AY.2002-03.He observed that post year 2002-03 era the pre-1997 position was restored as regards carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation.He referred to the cases of Times Guarantee Ltd.(2010 TPI 173)and Suresh Industries Private Ltd. (27 taxman.com. 203) and held that first unadjusted depreciation

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

27,62,750/-. The case was\nselected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The\nAssessing Officer (AO) concluded the assessment by making a disallowance of Rs.\n3,72,00,210/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source\n4\nITA Nos.261 & 1022/Mum/2025\nSamir Narain Bhojwani\non payment

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

section 32 (1) of The Income Tax Act. The AO further submitted that the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 722/BANG/2014 [ United Breweries Limited] for assessment year 2007 – 08 held that an amalgamated company cannot claim depreciation on the assets acquired in the scheme of amalgamation including goodwill, more than that which is permitted to the amalgamating company

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

section 32 (1) of The Income Tax Act. The AO further submitted that the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 722/BANG/2014 [ United Breweries Limited] for assessment year 2007 – 08 held that an amalgamated company cannot claim depreciation on the assets acquired in the scheme of amalgamation including goodwill, more than that which is permitted to the amalgamating company

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

27 of 1999, Section 26 (w.e.f. 1.4.2000).] (a) by the amount of depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act or under

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 35ABB of the Act and has upheld the allowability of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. 27. We further

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

Section 32 of the Act, which provides for claim of depreciation, does not have any category to allow depreciation on the shares. As such, even otherwise, the shares which are transferred by the assessee is not at all a depreciable asset and thus, the question of claiming depreciation on the same does not arise. 27

NUTECH ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

27 Vikas Centre, S.V. Room No. 552 Road, Santacrus West 5th Floor Mumbai-400 054. Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road PAN : AAACN0273B Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ajay R. Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar Department by Shri A.K. Ambastha Date of Hearing 06.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 06.11.2024 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above cited

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 of Rs. 1,27,32,60,976/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 7,94,64,25,489/-income under section

VODAFONE IDEA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -5, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

27,68,335/- by claiming depreciation to the tune of Rs.1682.48 crores @ 25% on the spectrum fees paid by treating it as ‘intangible asset’, which was allowed by the AO under section

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

depreciation, then the capital gain has to be computed in the manner prescribed under Section 50 and the capital gains tax will be charged as if such capital gain has arisen out of a short term capital asset but if such capital gain is invested in the manner prescribed in Section 54E, then the capital gain shall not be charged

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

section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: “Explanation 2.— —Where in any previous year, any block of assets is Where in any previous year, any block of assets is transferred

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

27 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 26. Depreciation claim for the purpose of Section 10A exemption (Ground No.5) 27

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

section 143(3) vide order dated 30.03.2015. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had acquired Hotel Leela, Kovalam as a going concern under slump sale from M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. The assessee claimed depreciation aggregating to Rs. 25,86,15,073/- on the assets so acquired. The Assessing Officer then examined

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

section 143(3) vide order dated 30.03.2015. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had acquired Hotel Leela, Kovalam as a going concern under slump sale from M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd. The assessee claimed depreciation aggregating to Rs. 25,86,15,073/- on the assets so acquired. The Assessing Officer then examined

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

27,19,759/- by making an addition\nof Rs.15,20,19,347/-, after deducting the unabsorbed brought forward depreciation of\nRs.1,35,10,563/- as short-term capital gain on sale of depreciable business assets. The\nld. AO then passed the final assessment order dated 12.11.2021, u/s.143(3) r.w.s.\n144C(3) of the Act, confirming the income determined

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

Section 32 of the Act, which provides for claim of depreciation, does not have any category to allow depreciation on the shares. As such, even otherwise, the shares which are transferred by the assessee is not at all a depreciable asset and thus, the question of claiming depreciation on the same does not arise. 27

3A COMPOSITES INDIA PRIVATE LIMIED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

27 of 1999, Section 26\n(w.e.f. 1.4.2000).]\n(a) by the amount of depreciation actually allowed to him under