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

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

section 32(1) r.w.s\n2(11) of the IT Act.\n2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nDCIT and the Hon'ble DRP erred in not granting depreciation of Rs.\n2,42

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

42,09,390/-, which was further , which was further revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/-. In the revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

42,09,390/-, which was further , which was further revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/-. In the revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

42,09,390/-, which was further , which was further revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/-. In the revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

42,09,390/-, which was further , which was further revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/-. In the revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciation claim on 3G spectrum, we place reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in case of Malabar Industrial (supra) and Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (supra). ITA 3327/MUM/2018 Vodafone India Limited vs Pr. CIT, Mumbai 41. We also observe that the issue with regard to deduction

ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

section 28 to 42 of the Act). The appellant submits that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to earning exempt interest income and dividend income and therefore the disallowance of the estimated expenditure ought to be deleted under normal computation of income. b. In the alternative and without prejudice to ground no. 2a above the CIT(A) erred

DCIT RG- 12 (1)(4), MUMBAI vs. ARCHROMA INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri C.N. Prasad (Jm)

depreciation on assets obtained under slump sale. As we have already noted above the concerned sections that is section 2(42

DY CIT CIRCLE- 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ARCHROMA INDIA PVT LTD., THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

depreciation on assets obtained under slump sale. As we have already noted above the concerned sections that is section 2(42

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

section 32.Therefore, while we accept the assessee’s submission that the acquisition is genuine and for real consideration, we hold that this by itself does not conclude the computational mechanism of depreciation. That proviso regime, as applicable. 42