VALECHA BADWANI SENDHWA TOLLWAYS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhvalecha Badwani Sendhwa Pcit-11 Tollways Ltd. 4Th Floor, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Valecha Chambers, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv6105B Appellant Respondent Valecha Lm Tools Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-11 4Th Floor, Valecha Chambers, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri New Link Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv2787M Appellant Respondent : Shri Sumant Chadha With Appellant By Mr. Jitendra Trivedi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019

355/[1981] 7 Taxman 121 (Bom.). In view of the above discussed factual and legal position, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee is entitled to put his alternate claim that the deduction allowable to him may be considered as allowable as depreciation treating the ITA No. 2848 & 2849/Mum 2018 -Valecha Badwani Sendhwa Tollways Ltd. & Anr project/investments made

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

355/[1981] 7 Taxman 121 (Bom.). In view of the above discussed factual and legal position, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee is entitled to put his alternate claim that the deduction allowable to him may be considered as allowable as depreciation treating the project/investments made under the head "Plant & machinery" or treating it as a right/license

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

355/[1981] 7 Taxman 121 (Bom.). In view of the above discussed factual and legal position, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee is entitled to put his alternate claim that the deduction allowable to him may be considered as allowable as depreciation treating the project/investments made under the head "Plant & machinery" or treating it as a right/license

WEST GUJARAT EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

355 (Bom). In view of the above discussed factual and legal position, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee is entitled to put his alternate claim that the deduction allowable to him may be considered as allowable as depreciation treating the project/investments made under the head “Plant & machinery” or treating it as a right/license to collect the toll

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. WEST GUJARAT EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

355 (Bom). In view of the above discussed factual and legal position, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee is entitled to put his alternate claim that the deduction allowable to him may be considered as allowable as depreciation treating the project/investments made under the head “Plant & machinery” or treating it as a right/license to collect the toll

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PVT. LTD,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for\nstatistical purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed,\nappeals for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and appeal for AY\n2017-18...

section 32 of the Act. the issue whether goodwill\narising on transfer is eligible for depreciation or not, is no longer\nIntra, and has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smfs\nSecurities Ltd. (348 ITR 302) wherein the Hon'ble SC explained that \"In the present case, it\nis the valuation that is challenged

ADDL CIT CEN CIR IX, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

ACIT CEN CIR CIR-34, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

DCIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression "any expenditure" in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression "expenditure" as used in Section 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.44, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

depreciation of earlier years. In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 695 the Calcutta High Court has taken the view that deductions under section 80-I cannot exceed gross total income and if gross total income found is 'nil' or a net loss the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

355/– in respect of interest free advances to 100% subsidiaries of the appellant company 1.1 The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,27,12,447/– made by the AO by making adjustment of transaction of exports to IPCA Pharma Nigeria Ltd by comparing a ALP and appellant’s price on a product by product basis

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

355/– in respect of interest free advances to 100% subsidiaries of the appellant company 1.1 The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,27,12,447/– made by the AO by making adjustment of transaction of exports to IPCA Pharma Nigeria Ltd by comparing a ALP and appellant’s price on a product by product basis

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

355/– in respect of interest free advances to 100% subsidiaries of the appellant company 1.1 The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,27,12,447/– made by the AO by making adjustment of transaction of exports to IPCA Pharma Nigeria Ltd by comparing a ALP and appellant’s price on a product by product basis

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

355/– in respect of interest free advances to 100% subsidiaries of the appellant company 1.1 The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,27,12,447/– made by the AO by making adjustment of transaction of exports to IPCA Pharma Nigeria Ltd by comparing a ALP and appellant’s price on a product by product basis

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

355/– in respect of interest free advances to 100% subsidiaries of the appellant company 1.1 The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,27,12,447/– made by the AO by making adjustment of transaction of exports to IPCA Pharma Nigeria Ltd by comparing a ALP and appellant’s price on a product by product basis

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

355/– in respect of interest free advances to 100% subsidiaries of the appellant company 1.1 The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,27,12,447/– made by the AO by making adjustment of transaction of exports to IPCA Pharma Nigeria Ltd by comparing a ALP and appellant’s price on a product by product basis

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

355/– in respect of interest free advances to 100% subsidiaries of the appellant company 1.1 The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,27,12,447/– made by the AO by making adjustment of transaction of exports to IPCA Pharma Nigeria Ltd by comparing a ALP and appellant’s price on a product by product basis

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

355/– in respect of interest free advances to 100% subsidiaries of the appellant company 1.1 The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,27,12,447/– made by the AO by making adjustment of transaction of exports to IPCA Pharma Nigeria Ltd by comparing a ALP and appellant’s price on a product by product basis

DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

355/– in respect of interest free advances to 100% subsidiaries of the appellant company 1.1 The CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,27,12,447/– made by the AO by making adjustment of transaction of exports to IPCA Pharma Nigeria Ltd by comparing a ALP and appellant’s price on a product by product basis