ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

ii) of section 143(1) (a) of the Act. Another claim of the assessee covered by the intimations mentioned (supra) is Rs. 3,34,88,744/- shown as unpaid amount of gratuity and duly reported in the Tax Audit Report vide clause 26(i), same is clearly covered by clause (iv) of section 143(1

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 ()

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

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 ()

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

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 ()

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

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 ()

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

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

section 32 of the Act reads as under: 32. Depreciation (1) In respect of depreciation of (i) Buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii

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

section 32 of the Act reads as under: 32. Depreciation (1) In respect of depreciation of (i) Buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii

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 claimed by assessee under section 32(1)(i) of the Act; and pointed out that Hon’ble High Court was not adjudicating the claim of assessee on intangible assets u/s. 32(1)(ii

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 claimed by assessee under section 32(1)(i) of the Act; and pointed out that Hon’ble High Court was not adjudicating the claim of assessee on intangible assets u/s. 32(1)(ii

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 claimed by assessee under section 32(1)(i) of the Act; and pointed out that Hon’ble High Court was not adjudicating the claim of assessee on intangible assets u/s. 32(1)(ii

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 claimed by assessee under section 32(1)(i) of the Act; and pointed out that Hon’ble High Court was not adjudicating the claim of assessee on intangible assets u/s. 32(1)(ii

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 claimed by assessee under section 32(1)(i) of the Act; and pointed out that Hon’ble High Court was not adjudicating the claim of assessee on intangible assets u/s. 32(1)(ii

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 claimed by assessee under section 32(1)(i) of the Act; and pointed out that Hon’ble High Court was not adjudicating the claim of assessee on intangible assets u/s. 32(1)(ii

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 claimed by assessee under section 32(1)(i) of the Act; and pointed out that Hon’ble High Court was not adjudicating the claim of assessee on intangible assets u/s. 32(1)(ii

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 claimed by assessee under section 32(1)(i) of the Act; and pointed out that Hon’ble High Court was not adjudicating the claim of assessee on intangible assets u/s. 32(1)(ii

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 claimed by assessee under section 32(1)(i) of the Act; and pointed out that Hon’ble High Court was not adjudicating the claim of assessee on intangible assets u/s. 32(1)(ii

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

depreciable asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Even otherwise, this

JT. CIT (OSD) , CC-7(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANDHRA EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Further, the said right has been given to the appellant for a specified period with enduring benefit. It is also not disputed that on the expiry of the time period of the agreement, the said right of the Appellant will cease to have effect which means it slowly will depreciate