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 as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, 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 as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, 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 as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32

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 as per provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. for depreciation as per provision of section 32

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 under section 32(1)(1) of the Act is not acceptable. The relevant portion of the section 32 of the Act reads

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 under section 32(1)(1) of the Act is not acceptable. The relevant portion of the section 32 of the Act reads

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets and with which we concerned, the deduction in sub-section (1) of section 32

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets and with which we concerned, the deduction in sub-section (1) of section 32

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets and with which we concerned, the deduction in sub-section (1) of section 32

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets and with which we concerned, the deduction in sub-section (1) of section 32

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets and with which we concerned, the deduction in sub-section (1) of section 32

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets and with which we concerned, the deduction in sub-section (1) of section 32

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets and with which we concerned, the deduction in sub-section (1) of section 32

M/S ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets and with which we concerned, the deduction in sub-section (1) of section 32

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets and with which we concerned, the deduction in sub-section (1) of section 32

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Income

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

32 or sub-section (4) of section 35, to be carried forward; effect shall\nfirst be given to the provisions of section 72. In other words, section 72(2)\ncontemplates the loss other than the unabsorbed depreciation

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

depreciation claim.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 32(1)(ii)", "Section 250", "Section 143(3)", "Section 143(1)", "Section 36(1)(va)", "Section