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

depreciable asset and assessee has neither challenged the applicability of Section 50 of the Act nor has it challenged the income determined in accordance with the Section 50. The issue before us is, whether the rate of tax which is to be determined u/s.112 of the Act shall be applicable if asset is a long term capital asset held

TML DRIVELINES LIMITED ( SINCE MERGED WITH TATA MOTORS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of (Successor To Tml Drivelines Income Tax-2(1) Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan 1St Floor, Bombay House Mumbai – 400 020 24, Homi Mody Street Hutatma Chowk Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7625P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., Income Tax (Ltu-2) (Successor To Tml Drivelines 29Th Floor, Center-1, Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Tata Motors, World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7625P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

depreciation of revised written Down Value (WDV) of the assets acquired by the assessee from its holding company. The interconnected issue involved therein is whether the transaction would be covered by the provisions of Section 47

D.C.I.T. 2(1), MUMBAI vs. H.V. AXLES LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6199/M/2011 & I.T.A. No. 8469/M/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Tml Drivelines Limited Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Hv Axles Income Tax 2(1) Vs. Limited), 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18, M.K.Marg, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai - 400020 Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400001 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8324/M/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Tml Drivelines Limited Tax 2(1) (Earlier Known As Hv Axles Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Limited) M.K.Marg, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Nanavati Mahalaya, 18, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach7625P

section 47(iv). The reason being the identity of the ownership of the companies precluded its being considered as involving any gain to the transferor company. As capital gain was exempt in the hands of the transferor company and in order to ensure that the A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 transferee company does not claim depreciation

TML DRIVELINES LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS H V AXLES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6199/M/2011 & I.T.A. No. 8469/M/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Tml Drivelines Limited Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Hv Axles Income Tax 2(1) Vs. Limited), 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18, M.K.Marg, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai - 400020 Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400001 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8324/M/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Tml Drivelines Limited Tax 2(1) (Earlier Known As Hv Axles Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Limited) M.K.Marg, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Nanavati Mahalaya, 18, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach7625P

section 47(iv). The reason being the identity of the ownership of the companies precluded its being considered as involving any gain to the transferor company. As capital gain was exempt in the hands of the transferor company and in order to ensure that the A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 transferee company does not claim depreciation

TML DRIVELINES LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS H V AXLES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6199/M/2011 & I.T.A. No. 8469/M/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Tml Drivelines Limited Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Hv Axles Income Tax 2(1) Vs. Limited), 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18, M.K.Marg, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai - 400020 Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400001 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8324/M/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Tml Drivelines Limited Tax 2(1) (Earlier Known As Hv Axles Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Limited) M.K.Marg, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Nanavati Mahalaya, 18, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai - 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach7625P

section 47(iv). The reason being the identity of the ownership of the companies precluded its being considered as involving any gain to the transferor company. As capital gain was exempt in the hands of the transferor company and in order to ensure that the A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 transferee company does not claim depreciation

DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. TML DRIVELINES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS H.V. TRANSMISSIONS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

section 47(iv). The reason being the identity of the ownership of the companies precluded its being considered as involving gain to the transferor company. As capital gain was exempt in the hands of the transferor company and in order to ensure that the transferee company does not claim depreciation

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.

depreciation on the revalued amount. Hence 5th proviso to section 32(1) cannot apply.” We find that the above is a distortion of the proviso. No where the proviso mentions that the predecessor has always to be a company. It specifically covers ITA No.2470/Mum/2017. transfer under section 47

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 ()

depreciation invoking 5 invoking 5th Proviso of section 32(1) of the Act section 32(1) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted for the assessee submitted that for three reasons 5 that for three reasons 5th proviso (now 6th proviso) to section 32(1) proviso) to section 32(1) of the Act is not applicable

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 ()

depreciation invoking 5 invoking 5th Proviso of section 32(1) of the Act section 32(1) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted for the assessee submitted that for three reasons 5 that for three reasons 5th proviso (now 6th proviso) to section 32(1) proviso) to section 32(1) of the Act is not applicable

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 ()

depreciation invoking 5 invoking 5th Proviso of section 32(1) of the Act section 32(1) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted for the assessee submitted that for three reasons 5 that for three reasons 5th proviso (now 6th proviso) to section 32(1) proviso) to section 32(1) of the Act is not applicable

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 ()

depreciation invoking 5 invoking 5th Proviso of section 32(1) of the Act section 32(1) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted for the assessee submitted that for three reasons 5 that for three reasons 5th proviso (now 6th proviso) to section 32(1) proviso) to section 32(1) of the Act is not applicable

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 of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in clause (xill), clause (xilib) and clause (xiv) of section 47

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 of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in clause (xill), clause (xilib) and clause (xiv) of section 47

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

depreciation of\nbuildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how,\npatents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the\npredecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in clause\n(xiii), clause (xiiib) and clause (xiv) of section 47

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

47(xiia) of the Act, would have been chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act. The cost of the new asset acquired by the assessee is to be determined as per Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act. 15. Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act provides for the cost of acquisition of the assets - Cost of acquisition

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

depreciable asset and why it should not be treated as Short term capital gains. The working of capital gains as per assessee was as under :- 13 Reliance Transport & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Net block of helicopter as on 01.04.2012 11,19,47,371 Less : Deduction during the year (excluding spare parts of Rs.65,10,284/- and equipment

V. HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

depreciation allowable to the predecessor and successor in the case of succession referred to in clauses (xiii) and (xiv) of section 47

V HOTELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

depreciation allowable to the predecessor and successor in the case of succession referred to in clauses (xiii) and (xiv) of section 47