GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

depreciation does not arise. In view of the above three reasons, the , the proviso to section 31(1) of the Act is no ion 31

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

depreciation does not arise. In view of the above three reasons, the , the proviso to section 31(1) of the Act is no ion 31

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.

31-3-1974. Since then it was used as the branch office of the assessee and on the capitalised cost of the building the assessee was allowed depreciation until the assessment year 1995-96. However, the assessee discontinued claiming depreciation for the flat for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The flat was sold during the assessment year

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

31-3-1974. Since then it was used as the branch office of the assessee and on the capitalised cost of the building the assessee was allowed depreciation until the assessment year 1995-96. However, the assessee discontinued claiming depreciation for the flat for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The flat was sold during the assessment year

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

31 final assessment order dated 31st January 2023 under section January 2023 under section 143(3) read with 144C(13) read with section 254 of the Act denying 144C(13) read with section 254 of the Act denying 144C(13) read with section 254 of the Act denying the claim of 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

depreciation has\nbeen allowed in the first year itself and which is deemed as short term capital gain\nunder Section 50 of the Income Tax Act relying upon the judgment of this Court in\nthe case of CIT V/s. Ace Builders (P.) Limited([2005] 144 Taxman 855/281 ITR 210\n(Bombay)) even though the said decision was rendered

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 111(m) is not applicable as the Yacht was declared properly. From the above, it is seen that the SCN has alleged that the Yacht was purchased for personal purposes only. However, the allegation raised by the SCN was neither answered nor rejected. From the above, it is crystal clear that the Yacht was purchased for personal purposes only

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

depreciation\npertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 for carry forward and set off in\nthe year under consideration. As a result, ground no.8.1, raised in assessee's\nappeal, is allowed for statistical purposes.\nITA No.2458/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n23\n24. Grounds no.8.2-8.4 were not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly,\nthe same are dismissed as not pressed.\n25. The issue

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.

31-01-1999. The firm was then succeeded by this assessee company on 01-02-1999. The assessee company claimed depreciation u/s 32 of the Act on the said revalued trade mark worth Rs.5.52 crores. The AO had denied the claim of depreciation on this figure. The matter had proceeded twice to the ITAT. In the latest remand

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

depreciation at the prevailing rate as per income tax account is amounting to Rs. 2,716,300,000 were claimed in the return of income on that goodwill. The ld. AO further noted that there is a difference of Rs. 177,359,710 for which no details were produced by the assessee. Learned assessing officer noted that assessee

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

depreciation at the prevailing rate as per income tax account is amounting to Rs. 2,716,300,000 were claimed in the return of income on that goodwill. The ld. AO further noted that there is a difference of Rs. 177,359,710 for which no details were produced by the assessee. Learned assessing officer noted that assessee

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)

31, 2017 alone. 3. Without prejudice to Grounds I and 2 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in assuming jurisdiction and passing the revisionary order under section 263 of the Act since: 3.1. The order passed by the learned AO under section 144C(13) read with section

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 43(1) of the Act. The balance amount of the slump sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 439,07,65,750/-, was treated as attributable to land. 15. The details are tabulated below: Particulars WDV on date of Rate Depreciation WDV after transfer (Rs.) (Rs.) depreciation (Rs.) Building 31

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 43(1) of the Act. The balance amount of the slump sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 439,07,65,750/-, was treated as attributable to land. 15. The details are tabulated below: Particulars WDV on date of Rate Depreciation WDV after transfer (Rs.) (Rs.) depreciation (Rs.) Building 31

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

31,100/-. The assessee then from A.Y. 2014-15 onwards had claimed\ndepreciation on the said asset @10% on WDV of the assets and reducing the same from\nthe 'Income from Business or Profession' in its return of income till A.Y. 2018-19. The\ntotal depreciation claimed by the assessee is Rs.9,54,69,527/-, claiming deduction from\n'Income

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

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act 1961 is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and void ab-initio. Without prejudice to the above, 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (“PCIT”) has erred in passing the Order dated 31 March 2021 u/s. 263 of the Income

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

depreciation. Thus, in my view, the view canvassed by the learned Judicial Member is apt under the facts and circumstances of the case. 31. As regards the reliance of the learned DR on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Synthetic Ltd. (supra), I find that the decision rendered relied

DCIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDILA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1491/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 9(2)(2) Credila Financial Services R.No. 665A, 6 T H Floor, Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, B-301 Citi Point, V. Mumbai-400020 Next To Kohinoor Continental Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccc8789P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

31-03-2012 as contended by learned counsel for the assessee does not meet the requirements of Section 79 of the 1961 Act in the opinion of learned DR. 7.12 We have considered rival contention and perused the material on record including case laws relied upon and orders of the authorities below. The assessee is a company engaged in business