THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act as the case may be. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act as the case may be. The first proviso to section 147 of the Act reads as under: reads as under:- "Provided that wher "Provided that where

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any \nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment \nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections \n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : \n\n Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any \nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment \nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections \n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : \n\n Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

depreciation of INR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. “3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs. 1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses

DY CIT CC 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARANJA TERMINAL AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.6897 & 6898/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

section (1) to Sec. 221 of the Act. Further, rebutting the observations of the CIT(A) that the assessee had failed to pay its admitted tax liability due to financial constraints, it was submitted by the ld. D.R that the said observation was factually incorrect as the assessee had sufficient funds parked as deposits with the bank. It was, thus

DY CIT CC 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARANJA TERMINAL AND LOGISTICS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.6897 & 6898/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

section (1) to Sec. 221 of the Act. Further, rebutting the observations of the CIT(A) that the assessee had failed to pay its admitted tax liability due to financial constraints, it was submitted by the ld. D.R that the said observation was factually incorrect as the assessee had sufficient funds parked as deposits with the bank. It was, thus

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.03.1998. Subsequently, reassessment proceeding were initiated in respect of three issues viz., (i) the expenses claimed for share issue, (ii) bad and doubtful debts and, (iii) excess depreciation

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

depreciation of\nINR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are\nallowed.\n8.\nGround No. 3.\n\"3.\n3.1.\nDisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia)\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nCIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the\nliability of Rs.1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

3) of the IT Act apply only to business loss and do not cover\nthe amount of unabsorbed depreciation which is treated as depreciation of\ncurrent year as per section

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

section 43(1). The hon'ble CIT(A) having held that the disallowance of depreciation as per Explanation 3 o section

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2626/Mum/2014 Mumbai Railway Vikas Corpn. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Churchgate Station Bldg., Churchgate, Mumbai -51 Pan:Aaccm1284 B ...... Appellant Vs. The Dit(E), R.No.616, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vipul Joshi Respondent By : S/Shri E. Sankaran/ Shiddaramappa Koppaattanvar Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/08/2016

depreciation and it was leveraging its funds to earn income, which was also not being applied for the object for any ‘general public utility’. 4.2 In the above background, the Ld. Representative for the assessee has vehemently pointed out that the Director erred in law as also on facts in invoking the provisions of section 12AA(3