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

5) The appellant prays that if lease rentals are not allowed as a deduction, depreciation on leased assets and finance charges included in the lease rentals may be allowed as a deduction. (C) Additional disallowance under section

JM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

5) The appellant prays that if lease rentals are not allowed as a deduction, depreciation on leased assets and finance charges included in the lease rentals may be allowed as a deduction. C) Additional disallowance u/s. 14A - Rs. 21,48,928/- 6) The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of the AO making

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T., CENT.CIR.44, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

Section 80B(5), even unabsorbed depreciation or issue of set-off and carry forward of loss or investment allowance has to be considered

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii reciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption

MOUNT MARY NAGARI CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

5) Guard file.\nSd/-\n[MADHUMITA ROY]\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\nBy Order\nAssistant Registrar\nITAT, Mumbai", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, a credit cooperative society, failed to file its income tax return for AY 2017-18. It later filed a return after the due date and claimed a deduction under Section 80P and depreciation

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

5) of Section 80- IA or for that matter akin to sub-section (6) of Section 80-I has not been introduced by the Legislature when it enacted Section 10B. The fact that unabsorbed depreciation

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT IT-3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

5 of Heads Agreement, SET was permitted to reconfigure, combined and/or package the Feed for the purpose of exploiting the „Rights‟ (i.e. the right to transmit, broadcast, exhibit, perform, include in cable programmes, and/or otherwise distribute or make available to the public, any moving visual and/or audiovisual representations including the Feed, Highlights Package and any recordings by specified means

ADIT (IT)-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

5 of Heads Agreement, SET was permitted to reconfigure, combined and/or package the Feed for the purpose of exploiting the „Rights‟ (i.e. the right to transmit, broadcast, exhibit, perform, include in cable programmes, and/or otherwise distribute or make available to the public, any moving visual and/or audiovisual representations including the Feed, Highlights Package and any recordings by specified means

M/S. GLOBAL CRICKET CORPORATION PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (INT. TAXATION) - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

5 of Heads Agreement, SET was permitted to reconfigure, combined and/or package the Feed for the purpose of exploiting the „Rights‟ (i.e. the right to transmit, broadcast, exhibit, perform, include in cable programmes, and/or otherwise distribute or make available to the public, any moving visual and/or audiovisual representations including the Feed, Highlights Package and any recordings by specified means

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016) and the loss shall not include depreciation; or] Following

DCIT , CC- 8(1), MUMBAI vs. NIRSHILP SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

section (4) of Section 73 so as to reduce the period of carry forward of speculation losses from eight assessment years to four assessment years. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2006and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2006-07 and subsequent years. 24. The revenue has clearly held that the assessee is in the trading

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.

5 Tata Communications Limited vs. Pr. CIT 18. The said section starts with non-obstante clause, that is, exception has been carved out to section 2(42A) of the Act, which provides definition for a short term capital asset. The said definition reads as under:- (42A) “short-term capital asset” means a capital asset held by an assessee

INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE SERVICES P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2009-10 Inventurus Knowledge Services V. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. 5(2)(1), C/O. Seren Properties Pvt. Ltd. 525, Aaykar Bhavan, (Sez), Unit No. 204, Build No. 5, M.K. Road, Mindspace Airoli Camp, Plot No. Mumbai - 400 020. 3, Gat No. 95, Kalwa Trans, Thane Creek, Midc Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan/Gir No. Aabck4601P

5. In Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC) the appellant company estimated its liability under two gratuity schemes framed by the company and the amount of liability was deducted from the gross receipts in the P&L a/c. The company had worked out on an actuarial valuation its estimated liability and made

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 80-IA(5) of the Act has used the word "initial assessment year" and not "year of commencement" and difference between the two is not appreciated. Accordingly, provisions of sec 80-IA(5) would be applicable only in the year subsequent to the initial assessment year and the unabsorbed depreciation

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 u/s 50 even though deem to be capital gain arising from transfer of a short term capital asset, that fiction has to be confined only to section 50 and it cannot convert 'short term capital asset' into a 'long term capital asset' and vice versa for the other purpose of the Act, either for set off against

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 u/s.32 of the Act for Rs.1,61,18,819/-. The Assessing Officer further denied the deduction claimed under section 80HHE by the Assessee while concluding the assessment under section 143(3). The Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the Assessing Officer. 5

ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blea.C.I.T. Cc – 8(4) V. M/S. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No: Aaacs 7934 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation is already absolved, it does not exist. For the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction under subsection (5) of section

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GARDEN COURT DISTILLERIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledcit-9(3)(2) V. M/S. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Unit No. 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Raheja Plaza, Off. Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053

5 ITA NO.4784/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2012-13) & C.O NO.324/MUM/2017 M/s. Garden Court Distilleries Pvt. Ltd business for the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction under section 80IA of the Act has to be computed before deduction of the notionally brought forward losses and depreciation

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. KHANNA HOTEL P.LTD, MUMBAI

section 32(1), that is depreciation for the current year in the following year(s) to be set off against income under any head, like current depreciation, in perpetuity. If a Departmental representative has rightly or wrongly argued an issue before any Bench of the Tribunal, other Departmental representatives across the country cannot be inhibited from arguing what they feel