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

depreciation thereon.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (Supreme Court) while dealing with interpretation of section

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the payments made for obtaining membership is not allowable expenditure and the payments made towards annual renewal fees and expenditure incurred at Clubs for the business purpose is allowable expenditure, but not the payment made for obtaining membership. The AO further held

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the payments made for obtaining membership is not allowable expenditure and the payments made towards annual renewal fees and expenditure incurred at Clubs for the business purpose is allowable expenditure, but not the payment made for obtaining membership. The AO further held

GANESH BENZOPLAST LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesrl

350/. Further the A.O. found that the assessee company is not entitled to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 43,70,38,442/- for the period 1996- 97 to 2001-12 to be set off against income. Finally the A.O. has assessed the total loss of Rs.4,56,41,858/- and passed the order

NTT GLOBAL DATA CENTERS & CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (ERSTWHILE NETMAGIC IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-10 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blentt Global Data Centers & Cloud V. National E-Assessment Centre Infrastructure India Private Limited {Now Known As National {Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Faceless Appeal Centre} Private Limited} Delhi 7Th Floor, Hiranandani Business Park Sakinaka S.O., Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aaccn2366D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Shri Arpit Doshi & Ms. Payal Mehta Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

section 37(1) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer also did not allow the depreciation on such leased asset on the ground that Assessee a lessee is not the owner of such leased assets. Page No. 4 NTT Global Data Centers & Cloud Infrastructure India Private Limited 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions

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)

depreciation in foreign currency held by him on conversion from another currency, such profit and loss would ordinary be trading loss if the foreign currency held by the assessee on revenue account as trading asset or as a part of circulating capital embargo in business. However, if the foreign currency is held as a capital asset, the loss should

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

350 under the normal provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and book profit of ₹277226,48,68,867 under section 115JB of the Act. The Reliance Industries Ltd 7 ITA No. 3705/MUM/2024 & CO No. 153/MUM/2024 assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act on 02.02.2018, wherein

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. NTT GLOBAL DATA CENTERS CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16

350 ITR 527. 5 8. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 28/12/2018 passed under section 143(3) read with section 92CA(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee in the profit and loss account has already debited the interest portion in lease rental payment and has taken a deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, THANE, ASHAR IT PART, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE WEST vs. MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, SANDOZBAUGH SO THANE

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

350\n37,54,175\n2 Indian Society of Agribusiness\n1,30,59,975\n65,29,988\n3 Action for food production\n55,48,500\n27,74,250\n4.Action for food production\n84,00,000\n42,00,000\n5.Action for food production\n84,00,000\n42,00,000\n6.Ahilyadevi Holkar Bahuuddeshiya\n35,00,000\n17,50,000\nTotal

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation and brought forward business losses of preceding years amounting to INR 22,13,95,674/-. In the return of income, the Book profits under Section 115JB of the Act were computed at INR.53,64,328/- ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 6. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation and brought forward business losses of preceding years amounting to INR 22,13,95,674/-. In the return of income, the Book profits under Section 115JB of the Act were computed at INR.53,64,328/- ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 6. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation and brought forward business losses of preceding years amounting to INR 22,13,95,674/-. In the return of income, the Book profits under Section 115JB of the Act were computed at INR.53,64,328/- ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 6. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular

DAYAL TAHILRAM PARWANI,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3194/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-19(3), Dayal Tahilram Parwani बनाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Floor, Brijbala Building, 21St Road, Bandra (W), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpp 6013 C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3545/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Dayal Tahilram Parwani Dy. Cit-19(3), Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 012 Vs. ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Jasbir S. Chauhanlove Kumar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.09.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are The Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26-2-2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 26-12-2011. 2

depreciable asset, section 50 shall apply, so that irrespective of period of holding, the capital gain shall be 3 ITA Nos. 3194/Mum/2013 & 3545/Mum/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) Dayal Tahilram Parwani computed in the manner provided thereby, treating the gain as a short term capital gain; and (f) section 54EC shall consequently not apply in-as-much as the capital gain arising

DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. DAYAL TAHILRAM PARWANIAN ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3194/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-19(3), Dayal Tahilram Parwani बनाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Floor, Brijbala Building, 21St Road, Bandra (W), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpp 6013 C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3545/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Dayal Tahilram Parwani Dy. Cit-19(3), Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 012 Vs. ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Jasbir S. Chauhanlove Kumar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.09.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are The Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26-2-2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 26-12-2011. 2

depreciable asset, section 50 shall apply, so that irrespective of period of holding, the capital gain shall be 3 ITA Nos. 3194/Mum/2013 & 3545/Mum/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) Dayal Tahilram Parwani computed in the manner provided thereby, treating the gain as a short term capital gain; and (f) section 54EC shall consequently not apply in-as-much as the capital gain arising

M/S BAUL MSK INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the aforesaid issue is restored to the file of the A.O in terms of our aforesaid directions. The Ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Bul Msk Infrastructure Pvt. Acit -15(1)(2), Ltd., 1008, 10Th Floor –V, Vs. Room No. 403, 4Th Floor Time Square, Plot No. 3, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sector 14, Belapur Cbd, Mumbai 400 020 Navi Mumbai- 400614 Pan No. Aaccb9447M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain, A.R Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2021

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate. 18. In view of our aforesaid conclusion, there is no need to answer the second part of the question framed. This disposes of grounds no.2, 3, 5 and 6.” We find that the aforesaid order of the „Special bench

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

350 were sought to be included in that section and deduction was allowed accordingly by the Tribunal. The High Court held that this would amount to re-writing the section, which cannot be permitted. The precise controversy that has arisen in the present case was not before the Madras High Court. And ITA Nos.1584&3596/11&4071/12 14. As regards

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

350 were sought to be included in that section and deduction was allowed accordingly by the Tribunal. The High Court held that this would amount to re-writing the section, which cannot be permitted. The precise controversy that has arisen in the present case was not before the Madras High Court. And ITA Nos.1584&3596/11&4071/12 14. As regards

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

350 were sought to be included in that section and deduction was allowed accordingly by the Tribunal. The High Court held that this would amount to re-writing the section, which cannot be permitted. The precise controversy that has arisen in the present case was not before the Madras High Court. And ITA Nos.1584&3596/11&4071/12 14. As regards