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

1), as a check has been put in place by virtue of section 10B (5) to een put in place by virtue of section 10B (5) to verify the correctness of claim of deduction at the time of filing the verify the correctness of claim of deduction at the time of filing the verify the correctness of claim of deduction

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), 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 () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

section 22(1)G of the Act. Accordingly, the depreciation allowable to the 22(1)G of the Act. Accordingly, the depreciation allowable to the 22(1)G of the Act. Accordingly, the depreciation allowable to the assessee on Goodwill should have been o (zero). assessee on Goodwill should have been o (zero). 5

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

5. Excess grant of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) Rs.12.23 crores 5.1 Your goodself in the show cause notice has made an observation that in the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia), Bank has classified some branches as rural branches which are not rural ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 branches as per census 2011. You have identified

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.

Section 43(1), the depreciation on enhanced value of assets due to revaluation is prohibited expressly by the 5!h Proviso

KETAN BROTHERS DIAMONDS EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation on motor car.” 3. The first issue arising in present appeal is pertaining to disallowance of Rs.32,140, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section

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

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

depreciation on\ngoodwill, distribution network and customer relations under section 32 of\nthe Act. As a result, grounds no.3, 4 and 5 raised in assessee's appeal are\nallowed.\n41. Grounds no.6 and 7 pertaining to the adjustment made under section\n143(1

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

1) of section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016) and the loss shall not include depreciation

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

5 & 7 aggregating Rs. 3.90 crore and upheld the disallowance of items mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2, 3 & 6 aggregating Rs. 41.50 crore. With respect to item mentioned at Sr. No. 1, a separate ground of appeal viz. ground of appeal No. 3 has been raised in the captioned appeal, whereas ground of appeal No. 2.2 has been raised with

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

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

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

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

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

5) without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal and in the alternative, the learned CIT (A) order in disallowing the aforesaid claim of ITA No.2108, 2132/Mum/2018 & CO 110/Mum/2019; A.Y. 2014-15 depreciation by invoking the erstwhile fifth of proviso to section 32 (1

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

5) without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal and in the alternative, the learned CIT (A) order in disallowing the aforesaid claim of ITA No.2108, 2132/Mum/2018 & CO 110/Mum/2019; A.Y. 2014-15 depreciation by invoking the erstwhile fifth of proviso to section 32 (1

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

depreciation allowance has been computed. Explanation 2.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not neces-sarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of this section." 16. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and Rule 6ABA of the IT Rules. g) The learned CIT(A) erroneously interpreted the provisions of the Rule 6ABA of the IT Rules and stated that if the outstanding balance of advances is to be reckoned for calculating Aggregate Average Advances, then the denominator should also include the months of the preceding