MARKSANS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 35(2AB) of the Act is allowed by DSIR in the certificate given by them in Form No.3CL. Accordingly, the assessee was allowed revenue expenditure incurred by it and depreciation

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

depreciation\non Colour Idea store\nGround No.\nX V I\nGround No.\nX X\nGround No.\nX VII\n16\nDisallowance of Sundry\nbalance written off\nAllowed by\nCIT(A)\nGround No.\nV III\n17\nDenial of set off short\nterm capital gains u/s\n50 of the Act against\nlong term capital loss\nGround No.\nX III\n18\nNon-Acceptance

DY CIT CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation Ground No.\nGround No.\nGround No.\non Colour Idea store\nXVI\nXX\nXVII\n16 Disallowance of Sundry\nAllowed by\nGround No.\nbalance written off\nCIT(A)\nVIII\n17 Denial of set off short\nGround No.\nterm capital gains u/s\nXIII\n50 of the Act against\nlong term capital loss\n18 Non-Acceptance of\nGround No.\nGround No.\nadditional claim

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 2, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

depreciation\non Colour Idea store\nGround No.\nXVI\nGround No.\nXX\nGround No.\nXVIII\n16\nDisallowance of Sundry\nbalance written off\nAllowed by\nCIT(A)\nGround No.\nVIII\n17\nDenial of set off short\nterm capital gains u/s\n50 of the Act against\nlong term capital loss\nGround No.\nXIII\n18\nNon-Acceptance of\nadditional claim of\nForeign Tax Credit

DY CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

depreciation\nGround No.\nGround No.\nGround No.\non Colour Idea store\nX VI\nXX\nX VII\n16 Disallowance of Sundry\nAllowed by\nGround No.\nbalance written off\nCIT(A)\nVIII\n17 Denial of set off short\nGround No.\nterm capital gains u/s\nXIII\n50 of the Act against\nlong term capital loss\n18 Non-Acceptance of\nGround No.\nGround

USV P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-C-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

section 35(1X) of the Act during the year of incurring of expenditure of INR 38,94,47,850/- paid to Continuus Pharmaceuticals Inc. even after accepting that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of R&D during the year under consideration. Allowability of set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation

ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. MOBIAPPS INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(2)(4), M/S Mobiapps India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.542, 5Th Floor, 7/10, Borawala Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaccm3613L

depreciation of eligible units would be allowable for set off immediately on the expiry of the period of tax holiday i.e. 10 years. The provisions of Sections 32, 32A, 33, 35

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

depreciation of eligible units would be allowable for set off immediately on the expiry of the period of tax holiday i.e. 10 years. The provisions of Sections 32, 32A, 33, 35

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

depreciation of eligible units would be allowable for set off immediately on the expiry of the period of tax holiday i.e. 10 years. The provisions of Sections 32, 32A, 33, 35

NAVIN FLUROINE INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 7, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Act were duly satisfied with respect to fixed assets forming part of Dewas Undertaking, though the same were retired as of the year end. Hence, we find that the AO has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. In any case, there could be to two views possible and AO has taken

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 35(2AB), disallowance of Sales Promotion expenses and disallowance of ESOP expenses to allow additional deduction of Rs.6,01,35,587. Further the AO also did not allow the 5 ITA Nos. 77/M /21, 1241 to 1242/M/ 2021 & C.O. 01/M /2022 Lupin Limited deduction claimed through a letter during assessment proceedings towards additional depreciation

ASSTT. CIT -CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LUPIN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 35(2AB), disallowance of Sales Promotion expenses and disallowance of ESOP expenses to allow additional deduction of Rs.6,01,35,587. Further the AO also did not allow the 5 ITA Nos. 77/M /21, 1241 to 1242/M/ 2021 & C.O. 01/M /2022 Lupin Limited deduction claimed through a letter during assessment proceedings towards additional depreciation

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub A-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction ; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or subsection (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

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.

35. The Hon’ble High Court after referring the provisions of Section 50 held as under:- “4. While the contention of the revenue is that the asset in respect of which depreciation

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

35. The Hon'ble High Court after referring the provisions of Section 50 held as under:- "4. While the contention of the revenue is that the asset in respect of which depreciation

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

section 32(1) will not apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly we set aside the reasoning given by the learned CIT(A) for confirming the disallowance of depreciation of goodwill. 13 M/s. Lupin Limited Asst. year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 7.11 We noticed earlier that both the tax authorities have not examined the factual

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act @ 60%. Thus, a net disallowance of INR. 63,32,318/- was made by the Assessing Officer. 9.2. In appeal preferred by the Assessee on this issue, the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief and rejected the ground raised by the Assessee by placing reliance upon the decision of Special Bench

EMBIO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal for Ay 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhembio Limited Acit-15(1)(2), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Embio Limited Acit-15(1)(1), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Respondent By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

35(1)(i) and allow the same under section 37 of the Act. No contrary law is brought to our notice. In the result the ground No. I & II of the appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 14. Ground No. III relates to disallowance of brought forward losses (Business and Unabsorbed depreciation