DUN & BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 8, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner Of Services India Pvt. Ltd., Icc Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai Pan: Aaacd P Appellant .. Respondent

43(6)(c)(C)(i) and section 32 of the Act. The AO while computing the assessment has accepted the computation of Short term capital gain u/s 50B without reducing the net worth by the current year’s depreciation

M/S. CRODA INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation on all intangible assets held by the assessee including the Goodwill. Accordingly, it was submitted that in view of provisions of section 32(1) read with section 43(1) read together with section 43(6)(b)/ (c

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 of Sections 45, 48 and 50C. We therefore find merit in the ld. AR's submission that the provisions of Section 43(6)(c

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.

6) Hence, if the A.O. disputes the actual cost being the revalued amount of the Asset then the only option available with the A.O. is to dispute the value by invoking Explanation 3 to Section 43(1). 7)) Thus, as per 5th Proviso AO can allow depreciation on actual cost (ie revalued amount) to the successor company ie Assessee

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

6. The appellant submits that the learned Assessing Officer be directed : (i) to allow the depreciation of a sum of Rs.2,97,23,700/-; (ii) (a) to delete the disallowance of Rs.16,98,745/- under Section 14A; (b) without prejudice to what is stated in para (a) above, restrict the disallowance to Rs.3,29,550/-, (c) without prejudice to what

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

depreciation', in the case of any block of assets, is to be computed on the written down value. According to Explanation 2 of section 32(1) "written down value of the block of assets" shall have the same meaning as in section 43 (6) (c

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

depreciation', in the case of any block of assets, is to be computed on the written down value. According to Explanation 2 of section 32(1) "written down value of the block of assets" shall have the same meaning as in section 43 (6) (c

ACIT - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PROGRESSIVE SHARE BROKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

depreciation and finance charges on the leased assets. In this regard, the Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 6 M/s Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following his own decision in earlier year

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

section 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. 16. The meaning of the term actually allowed is interpreted

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

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

section 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

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

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

section 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

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

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

section 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

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

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

section 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

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

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

section 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

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

section 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

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

section 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

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

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

section 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

LUPIN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

section 43(6)(C)(i)(B) r.w. Explanation-4 for computation of Written Down Value for computation of depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act, the assessee