DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation on additions to computers and software expenses and allow the claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file the relevant documents and evidences as may be called for and cooperate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability – Ground No.4 in assessee's appeal State Bank

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation of Rs. 12,76,648/- with reference to the same. He ought not to have done so. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

depreciation of Rs. 12,76,648/- with reference to the same. He ought not to have done so. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 13,91,89,365 under section 40A

INTERNATIONAL SHIPS STORES SUPPLIERES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 13(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2009-10 International Ships Stores Suppliers Vs. Jcit, Range 13(2) 101, Navratan, 69 P.D. Mello Road Mumbai 1St Floor, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai Pan No. Aaafi0135Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Mr. Deepak Traslhawala Assessee By : Mr. Javed Akhtar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2016

7. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of both the parties and also perused the material placed on record before us. That after giving thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case read in light of the settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that section 40A(3) of the „Act‟ is an overriding provision which operates

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation is not sustainable. This ground of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b)- Ground No.2 7

ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation is not sustainable. This ground of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b)- Ground No.2 7

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation is not sustainable. This ground of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b)- Ground No.2 7

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

7 Combined Cycle Power Point (CCPP) Bhivpuri 24 MW Unit 9 Bhivpuri 24 MW Unit 10 Bhivpuri 24 MW Unit 11 Khopoli 24 MW Unit 9 M/s. Tata Power Co. Ltd 4.2. The ld. AO observed that deduction u/s.80IA of the Act could be allowed only on the income of the particular units and accordingly the brought forward depreciation

TRIMODE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhtrimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit - 10(3) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dcit - 15(3)(1) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Hitesh Trivedi (Ars) Respondent By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Cit(A)]-22, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2012 & Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai Dated 24.06.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) For Ita No. 3471/M/12 & 4977/M/16- Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd.

depreciation on Car for Rs. 14,15,113/- holding that Motorcar has been used for personal purpose by the Directors. The 3 ITA No. 3471/M/12 & 4977/M/16- Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. assessing officer while disallowing the Directors remuneration and accommodation of rent also treated the same as payment made to related parties under section 40A(2). On appeal before

QUESS CORP LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ARAVON SERVICES PVT LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation of INR 2,47,92,333/- claimed on\ngoodwill amount claimed by the Appellant\n(b)\nDisallowance of INR 7,03,286/- under Section 40A

BAJINATH MELARAM,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 18, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafb2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent)

Depreciation of the supplier of the asset date where installatio actual use assets claimed rate a installed n which claimed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Please produce the original bills, transport receipts and delivery notes for verification. 8. Furnish details, PAN & ledger a/c of commission / brokerage expenses with TDS applicability thereof. Also explain the nexus of commission

MAHINDRA TRUCKS AND BUSES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

40a(ia) in those cases where the payees had filed their returns of income and paid tax due there under for the relevant assessment year, there being thus no subsisting tax liability of the payee which would entitle the Appellant to claim deduction under the proviso to the section at any subsequent point of time. Further in our appeals against

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

7. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of a sum of Rs 1,68,31,380 by invoking the provisions of section 69A/69C of the Act merely on the ground that the said purchases are from Hawala dealers. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

7. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of a sum of Rs 1,68,31,380 by invoking the provisions of section 69A/69C of the Act merely on the ground that the said purchases are from Hawala dealers. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

7. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of a sum of Rs 1,68,31,380 by invoking the provisions of section 69A/69C of the Act merely on the ground that the said purchases are from Hawala dealers. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

7. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of a sum of Rs 1,68,31,380 by invoking the provisions of section 69A/69C of the Act merely on the ground that the said purchases are from Hawala dealers. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances