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 ()

iv) Further as per 5th th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of 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 ()

iv) Further as per 5th th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of 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 ()

iv) Further as per 5th th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of proviso to section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of 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 (1) of The Income Tax Act. The AO further submitted that the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 722/BANG/2014 [ United Breweries Limited] for assessment year 2007 – 08 held that an amalgamated company cannot claim depreciation on the assets acquired in the scheme of amalgamation including goodwill, more than that which is permitted to the amalgamating company

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 (1) of The Income Tax Act. The AO further submitted that the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA number 722/BANG/2014 [ United Breweries Limited] for assessment year 2007 – 08 held that an amalgamated company cannot claim depreciation on the assets acquired in the scheme of amalgamation including goodwill, more than that which is permitted to the amalgamating company

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Even otherwise, this issue is concluded Even otherwise, this issue is concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation on additions to computers and software expenses and allow the claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file the relevant documents and evidences as may be called for and cooperate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability – Ground No.4 in assessee's appeal State Bank

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation on additions to computers and software expenses and allow the claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file the relevant documents and evidences as may be called for and cooperate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability – Ground No.4 in assessee's appeal State Bank

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.

32(1) cannot apply. C) In the facts of the present case, Actual cost cannot be altered by invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1). 1) It is an undisputed fact that even in the third round, revenue has not been able to produce the copy of sanction granted by the Joint Commissioner. Hence, invocation of Explanation 3 to Section

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad- in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

WIND WORLD INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad- in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

J.N INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad- in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad- in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

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 of asset which was used

EVEREST INDUSTIRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

iv) Loss in respect of circulating capital is revenue loss whereas loss in respect of fixed capital is not. (v) Loss resulting from depreciation of the foreign currency which is utilised or intended to be utilised in business and is part of the circulating capital, would be a trading loss, but depreciation of fixed capital on account of alteration

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à-vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THIRVANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

iv) Ashoka Info (P) Ltd. (supra) v) Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd. (supra). 8. The Ld. CIT(DR) appearing for the Revenue, has submitted that the 'intangible assets' eligible for depreciation in section 32(1

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD,ORRISSA vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

iv) Ashoka Info (P) Ltd. (supra) v) Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd. (supra). 8. The Ld. CIT(DR) appearing for the Revenue, has submitted that the 'intangible assets' eligible for depreciation in section 32(1