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

35. In the case of CIT vs. ICC India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble High Court has held that share application amount was a capital receipt and was never received towards trading purpose and, therefore, the question of applicability of section 41(1) does not arise. The High Court has, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Although

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

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

35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-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 sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

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

35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-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 sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

1 Violation of Judicial Ground. I Ground No. II Ground No. II Discipline 2 Order passed merely on Ground No. II Ground No. Ill Ground No. Ill conjecture and surmises 3 Breach of principles of Ground No. I Ground No. I natural justice 4 Enhancement made by Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. XIII XVI XIII

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

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

1 Violation of Judicial Ground. I Ground No. II Ground No. II Discipline 2 Order passed merely on Ground No. II Ground No. Ill Ground No. Ill conjecture and surmises M/s. Asian Paints 3 Breach of principles of - Ground No. I Ground No. I natural justice 4 Enhancement made by Ground No. Ground No. Ground

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

35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-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 sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

ACIT -3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HIKAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

section (4) of section 10A section 10A, relied upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of upon by the Assessing Officer, apply for the purpose of segregating the profits of the busin segregating the profits of the business into export profits and ess into export profits and domestic

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

IV. APPLICABILITY OF THE YEAR OF WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM UIS 72A OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES (BUSINESS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION) ON NON FULFILMENT OF CONDITIONS LAID DOWN u/s 72A(2)(iii) RW RULE 9C:- 1. The Learned AO failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of section 72A are applicable in A Y 2012-13 when the conditions

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

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

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

1,160,35,01,455/- in the normal computation of total income and further same was also added to the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. iii. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets of ₹27,31,73,482/- was allowed instead of depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹7,74,20,633/-. iv

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciation on value of investments and re- computation of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii), in respect of provisions of bad debts, as well as bad debt written off. 4. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT-2, Mumbai has issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to explain

SI GROUP INDIA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Si Group India Limited Large Taxpayer Unit – 2 Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area World Trade Centre Thane – Belapur Road Centre 1, 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai – 400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Si Group India Limited V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Large Taxpayer Unit Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Mumbai Thane – Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Vivek A. Perampura

iv) Place of Purchase/Shipment: The appellant has purchased the product from USA compared to the other purchase from India and Switzerland. (v) Other contractual terms: Further, the other material contractual terms also need to be compared with while considering the Cup analysis. 16. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that none of the factors have been considered by the TPO/Ld.CIT

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. S I GROUP INDIA LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Si Group India Limited Large Taxpayer Unit – 2 Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area World Trade Centre Thane – Belapur Road Centre 1, 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai – 400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Si Group India Limited V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Large Taxpayer Unit Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Mumbai Thane – Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Vivek A. Perampura

iv) Place of Purchase/Shipment: The appellant has purchased the product from USA compared to the other purchase from India and Switzerland. (v) Other contractual terms: Further, the other material contractual terms also need to be compared with while considering the Cup analysis. 16. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that none of the factors have been considered by the TPO/Ld.CIT

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

1\nVakola Pipeline Lane\nCuffee Parade\nSantacruz (East)\nMumbai-400\n005 Maharashtra\nS.O. Mumbai-400 055\nMaharashtra\n(Appellant)\nPAN/GIR No.AAACA3622K\n(Respondent)\n2\nITA No.2700/Mum/2023 and others\nM/s. Asian Paints\nAssessee by\nShri Madhur Agrawal &\nShri Ronak Doshi\nRevenue by\nShri Ajay Chandra\nDate of Hearing\n21/05/2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n26/07/2024\nआदेश / O RDER\nPER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):\nThe

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

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. With respect