ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation is available on goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation is available on goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation is available on goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation is available on goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation is available on goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation is available on goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation is available on goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation is available on goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to goodwill arising out of amalgamation, section, viz., 5th proviso to section 32 (1), section 49(1)(iii

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

49 (cost with reference to certain mode of acquisition) has been modified, that is, the computation of depreciable assets has to be done in the mechanism provided in sub section (1) and (2) of section 50. Since in this case sub section (1) is applicable, which provides that, where the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

49 (cost with reference to certain mode of acquisition) has been modified, that is, the computation of depreciable assets has to be done in the mechanism provided in sub section (1) and (2) of section 50. Since in this case sub section (1) is applicable, which provides that, where the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

iii. Failed to disallow the provision for depreciation on investment amounting to ₹46,19,11,355/-. iv. Excess deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of ₹159,22,24,604/- by allowing the claim despite assessee not revising its return of income for new claim which is against the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz

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

49(1)(iii)(e) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, it is pertinent to note\nthat these provisions form part of the Chapter dealing with “Capital Gains\"\nand section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer of capital assets,\npursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the purview of section 45 of\nthe Act. Therefore

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act on the same and reduce the total income accordingly. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing the exclusion of profits of branches in countries with whom India has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) namely United Kingdom

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act on the same and reduce the total income accordingly. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing the exclusion of profits of branches in countries with whom India has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) namely United Kingdom

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

1 (Bom). 43. As regards to the ground Nos. 7 and 8 of the Department’s appeal challenges the finding of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance as per rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules and directions in connection with applicability of rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. It was contended that the investments held by the assessee

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)

depreciation on value of investments and re- computation of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii), in respect of provisions of bad debts, as well as bad debt written off. 4. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT-2, Mumbai has issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to explain

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act on the same and reduce the total income accordingly.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing the exclusion of profits of branches in countries with whom India has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) namely United Kingdom

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

49,038/- and book profits of Rs.28,85,73,24,680/-. The return\nwas selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices\nwere issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of scrutiny\nassessment proceedings, the AO observed that an amount of Rs.\n471,05,05,075/- has been claimed as bad debts written off with regard to\nthe