NELCO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 15(2)(1) Nelco Limited Room No.357, 2Nd Floor, El-6, Electronic Zone, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1983C

depreciable assets, the written down value of the block of assets determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-item (C) of item (1) of sub-clause (c) of clause (6) of section 43; (b) in the case of capital assets in respect of which the whole of the expenditure has been allowed or is allowable as a deduction

DUN & BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 8, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner Of Services India Pvt. Ltd., Icc Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai Pan: Aaacd P Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation of Rs.19,968,604 both for the purpose of deduction under Section 10A of the Act as well as for t he purpose of computing Capital Gains in terms of Section 50B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaishri Omkareshwar Chidara

50B of the I.T. Act, 1961 clearly states that the net worth of the undertaking or the division, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement for the purposes of sections 48 and 49 and no regard shall be given to the provisions contained in the second proviso

M/S. LAFFANS PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE- 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2012-13

section 50B of the Act, disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses and disallowance of depreciation and related expenses on motor

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation under section 32 of the Act.\n\n53. The Ld. AR has submitted that the issue under consideration has consistently\nbeen decided in its favour by the coordinate benches of the ITAT, Mumbai. In\nparticular, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's\nown case for the immediately preceding

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

section 32(1)(ii)\nof the Act, it cannot be disputed that the consideration paid also covered the\nconsideration for these contracts, and the said consideration was over and\nabove the net asset value of other recognised tangible and intangible assets.\nWe find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in\nThermo Fisher Scientific India

ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

depreciable asset to the extent of the difference between the written down value and the actual cost being the depreciation actually allowed would be chargeable to tax as deemed business profits under section 41 (2) and the excess over the actual cost of the capital asset realized would be taxable as capital gain. The Ld. D.R. further argued that even

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

50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the cannot be denied the benefit of higher cost by relying on the sixth cannot be denied the benefit of higher cost by relying on the sixth cannot be denied the benefit of higher cost by relying on the sixth proviso to section 32. proviso to section

ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciable asset and accordingly no question of balancing charge would arise for consideration. But the surplus on sale of capital asset was held to taxable as capital gain. 5.9 It is not denied that subsequent to the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, provision of section 50B

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciable asset and accordingly no question of balancing charge would arise for consideration. But the surplus on sale of capital asset was held to taxable as capital gain. 5.9 It is not denied that subsequent to the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, provision of section 50B

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 ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

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 ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

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 ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

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 ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SODEXO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

section 50B(3) of the Act has adopted written down value of the block asset in case of the depreciable

DCIT RG- 12 (1)(4), MUMBAI vs. ARCHROMA INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri C.N. Prasad (Jm)

depreciation on assets obtained under slump sale. As we have already noted above the concerned sections that is section 2(42)c and section 50B

DY CIT CIRCLE- 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ARCHROMA INDIA PVT LTD., THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

depreciation on assets obtained under slump sale. As we have already noted above the concerned sections that is section 2(42)c and section 50B

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

depreciation expenses,\netc., are nothing but pertain to general banking business conducted at a\nbranch, and thus are in the nature of “executive and general administration”\nexpenses of the bank. Further, we find that these expenses also fall within the\nspecific species enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Explanation to section 44C\nof the Act, which is reproduced