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

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

depreciation [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [Section 35(1)(iv)] and also regarding patent rights or copyrights [Section 35A

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

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

depreciation [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [Section 35(1)(iv)] and also regarding patent rights or copyrights [Section 35A

DCIT 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1799/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Piramal Enterprises Limited Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Piramal Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, Healthcare Limited) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn4538P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 850/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Piramal Enterprises Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Piramal Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Healthcare Limited) Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओि से / Appellant By : Shri A Mohan, Cit Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओि से / Respondent By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal, Ronak Doshi, Ars’ सुनवाई की िािीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2020 घोर्णा की िािीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2020

depreciation on addition made to computer software at the rate of 60%. This ground is allowed. 17. In ground No.(iv), the assessee has challenged disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules amounting

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

35A permitted deduction only upto A.Y. 1998-99 and in later years even the part deduction was not allowable. 5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that the deduction u/s.80HHC for the purpose of section 115JB is to be worked out on the basis of adjusted book

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

35A permitted deduction only upto A.Y. 1998-99 and in later years even the part deduction was not allowable. 5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that the deduction u/s.80HHC for the purpose of section 115JB is to be worked out on the basis of adjusted book

DCIT CIR 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathapiramal Enterprise Limited Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(3) (Formerly Known As Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013

depreciation as claimed by the assessee on BMIL and PHL units. 21. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground No. 6 of assesse appeal is adjustment of valuation of inventory as per section 145A of the I.T.Act, 1961 for Rs. 1,20,83,000/-. The Ld. AR, for the assesse, at the time of hearing, submitted

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

35A, 35AA, 35AB and excluding clause(d) of sub-section (1), 45Y to 45ZF, 46 to 48, 50, 52 and 53 shall also apply; so far ITA Nos: 1767 and 2048/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 19 of 37 as may be, to and in relation to ……… any corresponding new bank”. The expression “corresponding new bank” is defined, under section

SHELF DRILLING J. T. ANGEL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. C.I.T. (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7414/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shelf Drilling J.T. Angel Limited Dy. Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Chemtex House, Main Income Tax, (International Street, Hiranandani Gardens, बनाम/ Taxation)-4(2)(1), Powai, Mumbai-400706, 17Th Floor, Air India Vs. Maharashtra Building, Mumbai-400 021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aascs2719P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7415/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, (International 4Th Floor, Chemtex House, Main Taxation)-4(2)(1), बनाम/ Street, Hiranandani Gardens, 17Th Floor, Air India Vs. Powai, Mumbai-400706, Building, Mumbai-400 021 Maharashtra (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aascs2715B अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri A Mohan, Dr

depreciation in the current year in relation to the alleged addition to capital asset before 31.3.2014 and thereby creating artificial losses in the current year. (x) Certain expenses of capital nature have been claimed as revenue expenditure. (xi) Expenditure pertaining to subsequent years claimed in this year. 12 | P a g e ITA Nos. 7414 & 7415/Mum/2017 Shelf Drilling J.T. Angel

SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LTD,,MUMBAI vs. DY. C.I.T. (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7414/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shelf Drilling J.T. Angel Limited Dy. Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Chemtex House, Main Income Tax, (International Street, Hiranandani Gardens, बनाम/ Taxation)-4(2)(1), Powai, Mumbai-400706, 17Th Floor, Air India Vs. Maharashtra Building, Mumbai-400 021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aascs2719P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7415/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, (International 4Th Floor, Chemtex House, Main Taxation)-4(2)(1), बनाम/ Street, Hiranandani Gardens, 17Th Floor, Air India Vs. Powai, Mumbai-400706, Building, Mumbai-400 021 Maharashtra (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aascs2715B अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri A Mohan, Dr

depreciation in the current year in relation to the alleged addition to capital asset before 31.3.2014 and thereby creating artificial losses in the current year. (x) Certain expenses of capital nature have been claimed as revenue expenditure. (xi) Expenditure pertaining to subsequent years claimed in this year. 12 | P a g e ITA Nos. 7414 & 7415/Mum/2017 Shelf Drilling J.T. Angel

M/S.OIL TOOLS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Oil Tools International V. Acit -15(2)(2) Services Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Village Kharsundi, Post Kharsundi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tal. Khalapur, Dist. Raigad - 410202 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaco7232M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Poojan Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Hiren Bhatt

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of subsection (1) of section 36; or 8 M/s. Oil Tools International Services Pvt. Ltd., (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived

ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. VINODKUMAR JAIN (HUF), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-16(1), Vinodkumar Jain (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, 1306, Panchratna, Vs. Tardeo Road, Opera House, Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aabhv 7626Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2016

depreciation u/s 32(1) and section 43(1), (b) capital assets used in scientific research u/s 35(1) (iv) and (C) regarding patent rights or copy rights u/s 35A

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodpiramal Healthcare Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Known As Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax- 7(1) Piramal Tower, Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013

depreciation as claimed in Return of Income. P a g e | 4 ITA No.1257 & 1486/Mum/2014 - AY. 2009-10 Piramal Healthcare Limited Vs. DCIT-7(1 DCIT-Circle 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. ) GROUND V: ADJUST MENT OF INVENTORY AS PER SECTION 145A OF Rs.1,16,08,088/- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009-10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2009- 10. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred