KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

394 of the Companies Act, 1956, vide order dated 24.02.2012, with the appointed date as 01.09.2011, for a lump sum consideration of Rs. 500 crores. The assessee also took over liabilities amounting to Rs. 2 crores. 4. For Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 39,14,740/- under

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

394 of the Companies Act, 1956, vide order dated 24.02.2012, with the appointed date as 01.09.2011, for a lump sum consideration of Rs. 500 crores. The assessee also took over liabilities amounting to Rs. 2 crores. 4. For Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 39,14,740/- under

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

depreciation on the cost of membership card. Is the cost of acquisition to be computed as per Section 50 of the Act or Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act. Further, what should be the period of holding of shares of BSE Ltd.; 13. At the outset, I make it clear that so far as the relevant factual matrix

M/S M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

394 (2) of the\nCompanies Act, 1956, Section 2 (1A) and various other provisions\nof the Income Tax Act, is that despite amalgamation, the\nbusiness, enterprise and undertaking of the transferee or\namalgamated company- which ceases to exist, after\namalgamation, is treated as a continuing one, and any\nbenefits, by way of carry forward of losses (of the transferor\ncompany

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

394 ITR\n449after analyzing the current provisions of Section 14A and the earlier\nprevailing provisions of this section held that sub-sections (2) and (3) of\nSection 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for\ndetermination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does\nnot form part of the total income under

ACIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M B PATIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , MUMBAI

394 (2) of the\nCompanies Act, 1956, Section 2 (1A) and various other provisions\nof the Income Tax Act, is that despite amalgamation, the\nbusiness, enterprise and undertaking of the transferee or\namalgamated company- which ceases to exist, after\namalgamation, is treated as a continuing one, and any\nbenefits, by way of carry forward of losses (of the transferor\ncompany

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

depreciation on\nGoodwill which has been disallowed by the AO. Facts in brief are the\nWealth Management and Distribution (“WMD”) division of Aditya Birla\nMoney Mart Ltd. (“ABMML") demerged into the assessee through a\nCourt-approved Scheme of Arrangement under Sections 391 to 394

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciable assets has categorically held\nthat the provisions of section 50C are equally applicable to asset forming a\nblock of asset as well. This finding is contrary to the contentions of the\nassessee as stated above paras. This decision though given in the context of\nsection 50 of the Act,has not been appreciated either the assessee or the\nRevenue

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation on the cost of membership card in the earlier years. 12 ITA No.1588/M/2012 & ors. M/s. KJMC Capital Market Services Ltd. 35. As regards the period of holding of shares of BSE Ltd., I find that as per clause (ha) inserted in Explanation 1 to Section 2(42A) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2003, period for which

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

394 of the Companies Act,\n1956, vide order dated 24.02.2012, with the appointed date as\n01.09.2011, for a lump sum consideration of Rs. 500 crores. The\nassessee also took over liabilities amounting to Rs. 2 crores.\n4. For Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee filed its return\nof income on 25.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.\n39,14,740/- under

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

394) Tax @ 18.5% Nil Since the assessee has book loss the provisions of section 115JB of the Act is not applicable.” 4. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT called for the records and after examination of the records, he was of the view that assessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, was erroneous

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

394) Tax @ 18.5% Nil Since the assessee has book loss the provisions of section 115JB of the Act is not applicable.” 4. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT called for the records and after examination of the records, he was of the view that assessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, was erroneous

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

depreciation under section 32 of the Act. 53. The Ld. AR has submitted that the issue under consideration has consistently been decided in its favour by the coordinate benches of the ITAT, Mumbai. In particular, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding AY 2009-10, in I.T.A

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

394 ITR 449 (SC) in which it has been held as under:- “37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14- A of the Act read with Rule 8-D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

394 ITR 449 (SC) in which it has been held as under:- “37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14- A of the Act read with Rule 8-D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

394 ITR 449 (SC) in which it has been held as under:- “37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14- A of the Act read with Rule 8-D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

394 ITR 449 (SC) in which it has been held as under:- “37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14- A of the Act read with Rule 8-D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CC-46, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

394 ITR 449 (SC) in which it has been held as under:- “37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14- A of the Act read with Rule 8-D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula