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 Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees medical benefit

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees medical benefit

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 204, Raheja Centre, Free Press Tax,Circle 3(4), Mumbai Journal Marg, Nariman Point World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 Pan : Aaace30836F Appellant Respondent

section 41(2) is that the assesseeshould have claimed depreciation under section under clause (i) of sub- section (1) of section

SABEENA SILK MILLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

Depreciation is claimed under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32; and (c) Building, machinery, plant or furniture was or has been used for the purposes of business Therefore, one of the conditions for applicability of section 41

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 50C of the Act, the depreciation should be worked out on the remaining value of the block of the building after reducing the stamp duty value of the building of Rs.9,76,75,509/- and, accordingly, he worked out the deprecation at Rs.1,09,41

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

41(4) is applicable only when recoveries of bad debts in relation to debts, for which deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is allowed. However, the issue is restored to the file of the Ld.AO to verify if the recovery of the amount, in the present case is in respect of write off of claim allowed as a deduction under

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

depreciation has been allowed in the first year itself and which is deemed as short term capital gain under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ace Builders (P.) Limited(281 ITR 210) even though the said decision was rendered in the context of eligibility of deduction

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation has been claimed is more than 36 months, then the gain of transfer of such asset is to be taxed as short term capital gain while computing the income. However, as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in several cases as noted above, Section 50 cannot convert the long term capital asset into a short term capital

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

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

41(1) or Section\n41(4) as the said bad debts were not claimed as a deduction under the Act.\nk) The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Honorable ITAT has merely\nrelied on its earlier order in the case of the Appellant Bank for AY 2005-06 while\npassing the orders

DCIT RG. 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

section 36(1)(viii) (Para 14, Pages 7 & 8 of the CIT(A)(A) order) The CIT(A)(A) erred in removing the fund based commission and fees amounting to Rs.1,94,31,55,445/- instead of the non-fund based commission amounting to Rs.1,29,41,05,983/- from the business income to arrive at the income from finance

ICICI BANK LTD. vs. DCIT RANGE 3(1),

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

section 36(1)(viii) (Para 14, Pages 7 & 8 of the CIT(A)(A) order) The CIT(A)(A) erred in removing the fund based commission and fees amounting to Rs.1,94,31,55,445/- instead of the non-fund based commission amounting to Rs.1,29,41,05,983/- from the business income to arrive at the income from finance

ACIT, CIRCLE - 16 (1), MUMBAI vs. BBC WORLDWIDE MEDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit -16(1), Vs. M/S. Bbc World Wide Room No. 439, 4Th Media Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai – Construction House A, 400 020. Off Linking Road, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052 Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2307F Appellant .. Respondent

section 28(iv) of the Act. 3. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set-aside and that of the AO be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that

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

depreciable immovable property invoking Section 50C.", "held": "The Tribunal considered the grounds raised by the assessee and the Revenue. Grounds 1, 2, and 3 of the assessee were withdrawn and dismissed. Ground 4, regarding addition under Section 41

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.TAURIAN IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

41(1) Rs. 1,79,33,604/- 2) Unexplained purchases Rs. 1,20,000/- 3) Disallowance of depreciation on car Rs. 22,34,428/- 4) Disallowance under section

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

depreciation is admissible under section 32 of the Act. After carefully analyzing the provisions, we observe that in the section that the expenditure on acquiring asset is to be allowed when such expenditure is incurred on acquisition of asset which is used in business of the assessee. In the present case the assessee incurred Rs. 54,72,697/- on acquisition

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

41,90,721 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(C) of the Act on\nthe basis of the order passed by the learned TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the\nAct be deleted.\n12. Ground 12 - TP adjustment of Rs.5,98,88,781 relating to\nreimbursement expenses\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

depreciation – sale of Bangalore Works (v) Disallowance of INR 3,18,00,000/- under Section 14A of the Act (vi) Addition of INR 4,25,44,104/- on account of extinguishment of debt being sales tax deferred loan liability (vii) Transfer pricing addition of INR 4,11,67,000/- (viii) Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC

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

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 41(1) are applicable because the assessee has claimed depreciation in the earlier years on the loan taken. for acquisition

M/S. DATAMATRIX TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5358/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2016-17) Datamatrix Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Acit 504, 5 Th Floor, Sai Arpan, P.G. Circle 9(3)(1), Vora Road, Next To P.G. Vora फनाभ/ Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, School, Mira Road (E), Thane- Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 401107 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacg4096M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Vipul Joshi, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri. V.Vidyadhar, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2021

depreciable asset, was governed by the specific provisions of Section 43(6) read with Section 41(4) of the Act and not by the provisions