SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271(1)© of the Act. For ready reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: Where in the course of a 71[search 72 initiated under section 132 [Explanation 5.-Where in the course of a section 132 before the 1st day of June, 2007], the assessee is found to be the owner

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

271(1)© of the Act. For ready reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: Where in the course of a 71[search 72 initiated under section 132 [Explanation 5.-Where in the course of a section 132 before the 1st day of June, 2007], the assessee is found to be the owner

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act is held to be statutory allowance and cannot be considered as an ‘expenditure’ as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act for disallowance and on the same analogy interest paid on partner capital by the partnership firm cannot be considered as an expenditure u/s 14A of the Act is again misconceived as we have already

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act is held to be statutory allowance and cannot be considered as an ‘expenditure’ as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act for disallowance and on the same analogy interest paid on partner capital by the partnership firm cannot be considered as an expenditure u/s 14A of the Act is again misconceived as we have already

SAI SAMARTH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 , THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

b), on or before such date; in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income of such income is otherwise disclosed to the [principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] before the said date; or (2) he in the course of the search, makes a statement under

CAPRICON REALTY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5724/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

Depreciation Rs. 51,396/- Total ------------------- Rs.16,44,673/- =========== The aforesaid expenses were debited to the Profit and Loss Account which were disallowed by the A.O as the real estate development project was not completed during the year under consideration and the assessee was following Project Completion method. The AO however allowed the said expenses to be carried forward to Real

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

depreciable assets – Rs. 99,01,531/-“ 4.3 So far as quantum additions at 4.2 (i) and (iii) above are concerned the matter went upto Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and tribunal was pleased to adjudicate both the issues vide appellate order dated 18.05.2016 in ITA no. 199/Mum/2013 for assessment year 2009-10 , wherein one of us being Accountant Member

GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

b) The Assessing Officer had erred in concluding that the Appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of addition of receipts from Soft-Skills/Non- Technical Training of INR 11,96,947/- brought to tax in hands of the Appellant as all the material facts were correctly disclosed in the return of income as well as during

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

depreciation on BSE card, Rs.10,03,320/- is sustained for addition.\nBut mere disallowance for expenses cannot be the point of penalty which is duly\ncovered by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts\n(P) Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) in alleged appeal order had respectfully\nreferred the catena

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 8(1), MUMBAI vs. CASTROL INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

1, which prescribes rate at which depreciation is admissible for different assets applicable for assessment years 2003–04 to 2005–06, we have observed, Part–A under the heading tangible assets and sub head machinery and plant at serial no.8 clause (ix) provides for depreciation for energy saving device which is again divided into 7 parts and under Part–B

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

b a i [ I T A N o . 1716/Mum/2017] • DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi [I.T.A .No.-6336/DeI/2012] g) It is submitted that the AO has wrongly levied penalty under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) for TP adjustment. In fact Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) provides for penalty

ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

271(1)(c ) of the Act. 5. The precise issue raised by the assessee in the additional grounds is that the ld Addl CIT is not vested with jurisdiction in accordance with the statutory provisions to act as an Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment order M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. passed is without jurisdiction, hence, null and void. To justify

M/S FLEMMINGO TRAVEL RETAIL LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS DFS INDIA P. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 9 (3) (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Flemingo Travel Retail Dcit –9(3)(2) Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Limited (Formerly Known As Dfs India Pvt. Ltd.), Chhatrapati Shivaji Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, International Airport, New Vs. Mumbai 400020 Terminal 2, Csi Airport, Sahar, Mumbai. Pan – Aaccd7412N (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation was granted thereon. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) further erred in confirming the penalty levied by AO on the provision for income tax of Rs.3,12,82,993/- pertaining to AY 2013-14 which was inadvertently claimed as deduction in return filed for AY 2014- 15 under section 40(a)(ia) due to clerical error. In doing

SHORELINE HOTEL P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle- 1(2), 29 Dar-Ul.Habib, Marine Drive, Old Cgo Building, 9Th Floor, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1380B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021

depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,31,417/-. Thus, the total disallowance sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals) was to the tune of Rs. 21,30,322/-. Based on the disallowance sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the AO initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LYKA LABS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation on the goodwill and the CIT(A) has overlooked the transfer transactions and provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act in deleting the penalty and relied on the order of the A.O. Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai. 7. Contra, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) considered the facts, judicial decisions, explanations of the assessee and the assessee

BERMACO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Bermaco Industries Limited The Asst. Commissioner D-73/1, Ttc Industries Area, Of Income Tax Midc, Turbhe Central Circle-8(4), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai

depreciation of Rs. 95,807/-. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated in the quantum assessment order for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The addition of bogus purchases was subsequently confirmed by the First appellate authority. Consequently, Ld. AO took up penalty proceedings, issued show cause notice and after considering the reply of the assessee, proceeded to levy penalty

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

271,63,00,000/–. Firstly, there was no claim before the assessing officer. The claim was made before the learned CIT – A. The learned CIT – A after obtaining the remand report of the AO denied the depreciation to the assessee. ITA No.2108, 2132/Mum/2018 & CO 110/Mum/2019; A.Y. 2014-15 The reasons given by the learned CIT – A4 disallowance of depreciation