ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions would render

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

37. However, the CSR\nexpenditure which is of the nature described in Section 30 to Section\n36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject\nto ulfillment of conditions, if any, specified therein.\"\n13. From the above it is clear that under Income tax Act, certain\nprovisions explicitly state that deductions for expenditure would be\nallowed while

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

37. However, the CSR\nexpenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section\n36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject\nto ulfillment of conditions, if any, specified therein.\"\n13. From the above it is clear that under Income tax Act, certain\nprovisions explicitly state that deductions for expenditure would be\nallowed while

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

37(1) and supports the assessee’s case. 41. It is also an undisputed fact that in the assessee’s own case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal has held that penalties levied by the stock exchange on account of similar operational lapses are allowable as business expenditure. The Assessing Officer, by allowing the claim, had thus followed

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

37,766. (c) Provision for Depreciation of investments of Rs.46,19,11,355. (d) Deduction allowed under section 36(1

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: “Explanation 2.— —Where in any previous year, any block of assets is Where in any previous year, any block of assets is transferred

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), 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

depreciation by invoking the erstwhile fifth of proviso to section 32 (1) of the act (now sixth proviso to section 32 (1) of the act) which proviso is not applicable to the facts of the appellant DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35DD OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMALGAMATION EXPENSES: ₹ 290,372/– 6) on the facts and in the circumstances

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

depreciation by invoking the erstwhile fifth of proviso to section 32 (1) of the act (now sixth proviso to section 32 (1) of the act) which proviso is not applicable to the facts of the appellant DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35DD OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMALGAMATION EXPENSES: ₹ 290,372/– 6) on the facts and in the circumstances

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(3)(2),, MUMBAI

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

37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the\nnature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed\ndeduction under those sections subject to fulfilment of conditions, if any,\nspecified therein.\"\n13. From the above it is clear that under Income tax Act, certain provisions explicitly\nstate that deductions for expenditure would be allowed while

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the same was in violation of section 101A(7) r.w.s. 2(9) of the Insurance Act?\"\nc) \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by upholding that the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

Section\n32(1)(ii) of the Act and were accordingly eligible for depreciation under that\nSection.\"\n35. Further, we find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in SKS Micro\nFinance Ltd. v/s DCIT, reported in [2013] 37

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

37(1) of the Act.” 2.1 The revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the relief in respect of deduction U/s.36(1)(viia). 3. The assessee has a practice of trifurcating the provision created

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018- 19. 2. Since both the cross appeals pertain to the same assessee arising out of a similar factual matrix giving rise to similar issues, these cross

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018- 19. 2. Since both the cross appeals pertain to the same assessee arising out of a similar factual matrix giving rise to similar issues, these cross

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 153A of the Act, the AO did not make any separate additions did not make any separate additions, but issued did not make any separate additions eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 153A of the Act, the AO did not make any separate additions did not make any separate additions, but issued did not make any separate additions eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 153A of the Act, the AO did not make any separate additions did not make any separate additions, but issued did not make any separate additions eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 153A of the Act, the AO did not make any separate additions did not make any separate additions, but issued did not make any separate additions eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act eedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inaccurate particulars of the income