VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

sections 28 to 43C, and hence, the income has to be calculated with reference to the registered tonnage of the ships and not on the basis of net profits; that consequently, the related party transactions are not considered for computing the income chargeable to tax and, therefore, the arm's length price determined under the transfer pricing provisions would

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 28 (va) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 3 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited (Earlier known as Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.) 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the compensation is paid to the Appellant for settlement due to termination of right to carry on the business of distribution

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 28 (va) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 3 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited (Earlier known as Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.) 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the compensation is paid to the Appellant for settlement due to termination of right to carry on the business of distribution

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.

28. Thus, in the context of set off against the brought forward of long term capital loss, the Hon’ble High Court held that the deeming fiction under section 50 is restricted only to mode of computation of capital gains contained in sections 48 and 49 of the Act and it does not change character of capital assets from

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

28. Thus, in the context of set off against the brought forward of long term capital loss, the Hon'ble High Court held that the deeming fiction under section 50 is restricted only to mode of computation of capital gains contained in sections 48 and 49 of the Act and it does not change character of capital assets from

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

depreciation is admissible under section 32 of the Act. After carefully analyzing the provisions, we observe that in the section that the expenditure on acquiring asset is to be allowed when such expenditure is incurred on acquisition of asset which is used in business of the assessee. In the present case the assessee incurred Rs. 54,72,697/- on acquisition

MONSANTO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

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

depreciation under section 32 and applying Explanation 5 to section 32 of the Act and offering resultant gain as taxable under section 50 would not arise. 11.5 On each of the aforesaid assets, it has been sought to be justified that the gain was a long term capital gain, on facts also. Regarding Distribution Network it has been explained that

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MONSANTO INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

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

depreciation under section 32 and applying Explanation 5 to section 32 of the Act and offering resultant gain as taxable under section 50 would not arise. 11.5 On each of the aforesaid assets, it has been sought to be justified that the gain was a long term capital gain, on facts also. Regarding Distribution Network it has been explained that

DCIT CC7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation of Rs. 8,57,83,800/- has assessed the total income of Rs.Nil and passed the order u/sec143(3) of the Act dated 22- 12-2006. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The appellate authority has confirmed the addition of waiver of Loan and M/s Anik Industires Ltd., Mumbai. granted relief

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

28 June 2019 was pleased to remand the matter to the AO for adjudicating the issue of pleased to remand the matter to the AO for adjudicating the issue of pleased to remand the matter to the AO for adjudicating the issue of depreciation on goodwill on merits. depreciation on goodwill on merits. 4.6 In the second round

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 is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

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 is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

Section 2(29AA) of the Act. Since the asset was a depreciable asset used for the purpose of business, assessee claimed depreciation from the date of its acquisition, i.e., from 31.10.2006. During the current year, the helicopter was sold for Rs.30,28

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

depreciation – sale of Bangalore Works (v) Disallowance of INR 3,18,00,000/- under Section 14A of the Act (vi) Addition of INR 4,25,44,104/- on account of extinguishment of debt being sales tax deferred loan liability (vii) Transfer pricing addition of INR 4,11,67,000/- (viii) Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC

M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

28. After careful consideration of the submission, it has to be said that the section of the Assessing Officer does not appear to be correct. What cannot be ignored is that subsection (3}(b)deduction inter-alia of indirect cost attributable to such exports. The phrase attributable to such export cannot be missed out. Therefore, an item of expenditure

ACIT CIR. - 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

28. After careful consideration of the submission, it has to be said that the section of the Assessing Officer does not appear to be correct. What cannot be ignored is that subsection (3}(b)deduction inter-alia of indirect cost attributable to such exports. The phrase attributable to such export cannot be missed out. Therefore, an item of expenditure

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

28. After careful consideration of the submission, it has to be said that the section of the Assessing Officer does not appear to be correct. What cannot be ignored is that subsection (3}(b)deduction inter-alia of indirect cost attributable to such exports. The phrase attributable to such export cannot be missed out. Therefore, an item of expenditure

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

section 14A, the Assessing Officer observed that once the assessee itself had furnished working on a that once the assessee itself had furnished working that once the assessee itself had furnished working proportionate basis, disallowance was warranted. Accordingly, he proportionate basis, disallowance was warranted. Accordingly, he proportionate basis, disallowance was warranted. Accordingly, he disallowed

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

section 14A, the Assessing Officer observed that once the assessee itself had furnished working on a that once the assessee itself had furnished working that once the assessee itself had furnished working proportionate basis, disallowance was warranted. Accordingly, he proportionate basis, disallowance was warranted. Accordingly, he proportionate basis, disallowance was warranted. Accordingly, he disallowed