SHETH CREATORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENT. CIR-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

depreciation (i.e. 1/4 i.e. 1/4th amount) which could be allowed to the amount) which could be allowed to the assessee. 10.10 In absence of such evidence In absence of such evidences, we feel it app , we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to file of the restore this issue back to file of the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer

DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2),, MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH CREATORS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

depreciation (i.e. 1/4 i.e. 1/4th amount) which could be allowed to the amount) which could be allowed to the assessee. 10.10 In absence of such evidence In absence of such evidences, we feel it app , we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to file of the restore this issue back to file of the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer

SHETH CREATORS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

depreciation (i.e. 1/4 i.e. 1/4th amount) which could be allowed to the amount) which could be allowed to the assessee. 10.10 In absence of such evidence In absence of such evidences, we feel it app , we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to file of the restore this issue back to file of the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer

SHETH CREATORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

depreciation (i.e. 1/4 i.e. 1/4th amount) which could be allowed to the amount) which could be allowed to the assessee. 10.10 In absence of such evidence In absence of such evidences, we feel it app , we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to file of the restore this issue back to file of the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer

SHETH CREATORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

depreciation (i.e. 1/4 i.e. 1/4th amount) which could be allowed to the amount) which could be allowed to the assessee. 10.10 In absence of such evidence In absence of such evidences, we feel it app , we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to file of the restore this issue back to file of the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

43B (f) of the Act on the said issue.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee-Company is engaged in the business of refining of crude oil and marketing of petroleum products. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 on 26/11/2014 declaring a taxable profit of INR 1747,64,54,080/- under

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 43B. Reduction of capital investment subsidy from actual cost of Plant & Machinery – Ground No.7 32. In the course of assessment proceeding, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed the capital investment subsidy of Rs. 3.93 crores and the same has been credited to the capital reserve without affecting the P&L A/c or depreciation

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 43B. Reduction of capital investment subsidy from actual cost of Plant & Machinery – Ground No.7 32. In the course of assessment proceeding, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed the capital investment subsidy of Rs. 3.93 crores and the same has been credited to the capital reserve without affecting the P&L A/c or depreciation

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation of Rs. 30,19,657/- u/s. 32(1)(iia). 8. The appellant prays for the cost of this appeal in view of section 254 (2B) of the IT. Act. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amplify or delete any of the above ground(s) before or at the time of hearing. The appellant respectfully prays that relief

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation of Rs. 30,19,657/- u/s. 32(1)(iia). 8. The appellant prays for the cost of this appeal in view of section 254 (2B) of the IT. Act. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amplify or delete any of the above ground(s) before or at the time of hearing. The appellant respectfully prays that relief

DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARSHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI

In the result , the Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2004-05 is partly allowed and Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 is allowed

Section 43B of the Income Tax Act intended to present, is taken care of by the provisions of the Bengal Electricity Duty Act itself." 34. Thus, in our considered view, the assessee deserves to succeed. The disallowance made by Ld. AO on this ground for Rs.23291.59 lakhs is hereby deleted and ground no.2 of the assessee is allowed." Following

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions, that the tax adjudicator has to enforce, and the assessee has to comply with, to secure a valid deduction. [Para 31] ■ The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation

NEETA TOURS AND TRAVELS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalneeta Tours & Travels, D-1, Hari Bhakti Compound, Retibunder, Opp. Dowellss Co., Ghodbunder Road, Kashimira, Thane-401104. Pan: Aaefn3413G ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Room No.27, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. 162, Midc, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Hiten P. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 30.05.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions, that the tax 4 ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022-Neeta Tours and Travels adjudicator has to enforce, and the assessee has to comply with, to secure a valid deduction. [Para 31] The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional

THE DY CIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOUROUS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

depreciation has been allowed on the amount capitalized and over a period of time it has no revenue impact. 12.2 In view of above, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn. 13. Ground No. 11: Disallowance in respect of employer's contribution to ESIC under section 43B

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 43B, consistent with the Department's stand. 2. On the fact and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in making addition of Rs. 99,02,963/- towards interest paid to Income Tax Department during the previous year and failed to follow the decision of Mumbai ITAT

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 3(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

depreciation of earlier years), the balancing charge/allowance and the apportionment of overhead expenses. With a view to simplifying and rationalizing the assessments in such cases, the Finance Act, 1975 has made a special provision in section 44B for computing profits and gains of shipping business in the case of non-residents. Under this provision, profits and gains

USHA GARMENTS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CPC,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleusha Garments Manufacturing Co. V. Dcit, Cpc Private Limited Bangalore- 560500 Plot No 13, Wicel, Central Road Opposite Seepz, Midc Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aaacu1397H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Vranda U Matkari

43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, section 40 (which too start with a non obstante clause overriding sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business and Profession". Likewise, section 40A(2) opens

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 43B. 3.2. The learned Pr. CIT erred in interpreting the word otherwise allowable to include advance payment. 4. The learned Pr. CIT erred in holding that amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- paid penalty is not an allowable deduction. 4.1. The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate the fact that the amount imposed by RBl is not towards