ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

depreciation. He further submitted that he is very much entitled under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules to object to the learned CIT(A)’s observation that Section 51 of the Act is not strictly applicable. Before proceeding further, we may refer to the provisions of Section 51 and 43(6) of the Act, which read as under

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

b een done under Explanation 3 to Section 43, rather it has been done under the main provision of section 32(1) of the Act. ii. The Hon’ble ITAT has admitted the plea of the appellant and directed the revenue to submit the copy of approval received from the Jt.C.I.T. From the remand report, it is clear that

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes, hereby directs that the Joint Commissioners of Income Tax or the Joint Directors of Income tax, shall exercise the. powers and functions of the Assessing Officers, in respect of territorial area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases, or classes of cases, in respect

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

depreciation' but dispute is in respect of the term 'written down value'. In explanation 2 to section 32(1), it is mentioned that for the purpose of sub section, the 'written down value' of the block of the asset shall have the same meaning as in sub section (c) of clause 6 of section 43 of the Act. The relevant

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

b) to section 43(6) of the Act, which lays down a\nsimilar principle as Explanation 7 to section 43(1) of the Act and provides\nthat actual cost of the block of assets in the case of amalgamated company\nshall be the Written Down Value of the block of assets in the case of\namalgamating company for the immediately

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

6. After careful consideration of the respective submissions of learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that there is no substance or merit in the preliminary objection raised. In Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd.'s case [1980] 124 ITR 518 (Mad), the Division Bench of this court sustained an objection on behalf of the Revenue to the jurisdiction

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

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

43(6), in the present case, unless the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating companies is carried forward in the hands of the amalgamated company u/s 32(2) of the Act, Explanation (3) cannot be read into Explanation (2) to simply conclude that depreciation 'actually allowed' also includes unabsorbed depreciation. M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. 16. The meaning of the term actually

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

43(6), in the present case, unless the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating companies is carried forward in the hands of the amalgamated company u/s 32(2) of the Act, Explanation (3) cannot be read into Explanation (2) to simply conclude that depreciation 'actually allowed' also includes unabsorbed depreciation. M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. 16. The meaning of the term actually

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

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

43(6), in the present case, unless the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating companies is carried forward in the hands of the amalgamated company u/s 32(2) of the Act, Explanation (3) cannot be read into Explanation (2) to simply conclude that depreciation 'actually allowed' also includes unabsorbed depreciation. M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. 16. The meaning of the term actually