KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciable assets has categorically held\nthat the provisions of section 50C are equally applicable to asset forming a\nblock of asset as well. This finding is contrary to the contentions of the\nassessee as stated above paras. This decision though given in the context of\nsection 50 of the Act,has not been appreciated either the assessee or the\nRevenue

M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP,MENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

depreciation allowable to the assessee keeping in mind the directions of the Tribunal in the earlier years, and as per law. 8. Accordingly, insofar as Ground of appeal nos. 1.1 to 1.3 are concerned, the same are allowed to the above extent.‖ 5. Since the facts of the issue in the present case are identical to one as decided

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

depreciation has been already set off in the preceding year.” The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction under section 80HHE by relying on the decision of the CIT(A) in Assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2003- 04. Aggrieved, the Revenue is contending the issue before the Tribunal. 18. The Ld.DR submitted that the Assessee is not entitled

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

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

sections 30 to 43D, Including depreciation allowable under section 32 of the Act even though the assessee has computed the total

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. WEST GUJARAT EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation on such type of capital asset. 32. In view of our above findings, this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed but on a different footing as discussed above and in terms of our observations made above” 8. When a query was put to the Ld. CIT DR, she has not argued anything on the issue and fairly admitted

WEST GUJARAT EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation on such type of capital asset. 32. In view of our above findings, this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed but on a different footing as discussed above and in terms of our observations made above” 8. When a query was put to the Ld. CIT DR, she has not argued anything on the issue and fairly admitted

ASST CIT (OSD) 8(3), MUMBAI vs. TIME TECHNOPLAST LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed and assessee appeal is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7045/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Time Technoplast Ltd. बिधम/ Acit, Range-8(3) 102, Todi Complex, 35 Saki Vs. Mumbai Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7008/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit, Range-8(3) बिधम/ M/S. Time Technoplast Ltd. 102, Todi Complex, 35 Saki Vs. Mumbai Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact2783J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri V. Justin (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02. 01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 24.09.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. Ita. Nos 7045/M/2014 7008/M/2014 A.Y. 2010-11

depreciation, because, under section 80-IA the quantum of deduction has to be determined by computing total income from business after deducting all deductions allowable under sections 30 to 43D

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

43D. Therefore, in computing the income from business, the provisions section 41 of the Act would be applicable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. J. H. Gotla, 156 ITR 323 (SC) has held that the word "income" includes "loss". Therefore, if the sales consideration of assets falls short of WDV of assets, the balance beingloss

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

section 28 to 43D and depreciation will be levied as per section 32 of the Act. Further, section 80AB has been

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

depreciation of Rs.168,81,45,689/- on leased assets. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the so called lease transactions are noting but finance transactions. ITA. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing a sum of Rs.125,96,48,926/- paid to SBI Mutual Fund

SHRI HARBANS SINGH BAWA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY CIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiharbans Singh Bawa Vs. Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, 410, Jolly Bhavan No.1 10, New Marine Lines Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent) & Harbans Singh Bawa Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 112, Free Press House Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 30 to 43D of the Act. Since, depreciation allowance comes under provision of section 32, any loss arises under

SHRI HARBANS SINGH BAWA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 17(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiharbans Singh Bawa Vs. Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, 410, Jolly Bhavan No.1 10, New Marine Lines Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent) & Harbans Singh Bawa Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 112, Free Press House Acit-17(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb6894K Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 30 to 43D of the Act. Since, depreciation allowance comes under provision of section 32, any loss arises under

M/S. INDIAN SEAMLESS STEELS & ALLOYS LTD. vs. THE JT CIT S.R.19,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 43D of the Act. He further noted that on verification of record, it was found that the assessee had claimed depreciation

DCIT - 20(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. J.B. ENGG. WORKS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

depreciation can be claimed only against business income and not against capital gains in terms of section 29 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which says that income referred to in section 28 shall be computed 24 J.B. Eng. Works in accordance with the provisions contained in section 30 to 43D

SUNBEAM MONOCHEM P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (A)-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.624/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Sunbeam Monochem Pvt. बिधम/ Pcit-8 Ltd. Room No. 611, 6Th Floor, Vs. 201/B, Runwal & Omkar Aayakar Bhavan, Esquare, Opp Sion Maharshi Karve Road, Chunabhatti Signal, Eastern Mumbai-400020. Express Highway, Sion East, Mumbai-400022. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs8172P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 26.02.2021 For Assessment Year 2015- 16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

43D of the Act, including section 37 of the Act. 16 A.Y. 2015-16 Sunbeam Monachem Pvt. Ltd. 17. From the facts placed before us, it is noted that assessee had claimed the expenses of Rs.78,47,609/- by way of current repairs under Section 30, 31 or 37 of the Act as it did not result in creation

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

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

43D read with Rule 6EA are not applicable. 9.3 The learned PCIT erred in not appreciating that the said issue is decided by the ITAT in Bank's own case for AY 2008-09. Accordingly, the issue is well settled in favour of the Bank and hence outside the purview of section 263. 10. Taxing of recovery of bad debts

ACIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

43D of the Act and that the write- off of the same was allowable as a deduction. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing Resurgent India Bonds issue expenses of Rs. 25,20,81,440 2 ITA No. 4736 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India under section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2),

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

43D of the Act and that the write- off of the same was allowable as a deduction. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing Resurgent India Bonds issue expenses of Rs. 25,20,81,440 2 ITA No. 4736 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India under section

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOAICATES P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Hindustan Thompson Income-Tax, Circle 16(1) Associates Private Room No. 439, 4 Th Floor, Limited V. Aayakar Bhawan 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg , Churchgate Peninsula Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach1463M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. B. Srinivas (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Smt. Aarti Vissanji &, Shri. Ajit C. Shah & Ms. Aastha Shah सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1206/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 12.12.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.1206 /Mum/2018

43D. Sections 30 to 37 grant various deductions on account of expenses / allowances etc. Section 38 restricts the amount of depreciation