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 ,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

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

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

1 read with Explanation 2 to section 50B as per which the aggregate value of total asset (written down value in case of 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)

1) Where a person carrying on any business or profession (such person hereinafter in this section being referred to as the predecessor) has been succeeded therein by any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the successor) who continues to carry on that business or profession :- (a) the predecessor shall be assessed in respect of the income

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

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

1),that the above admitted fact remained so even when the return was filed in response to notice u/s.148, that subsequent to the reassessment proceedings the dispute or the grievance of the assessee was confined to the computation as per section 50B of the Act, that the transaction in question was a 6 ITA/2913/Mum/2015; M/s. Oricon Enterprises Limited slump sale

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

depreciation under section 32 of the Act. 53. The Ld. AR has submitted that the issue under consideration has consistently been decided in its favour by the coordinate benches of the ITAT, Mumbai. In particular, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding AY 2009-10, in I.T.A

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

1 to section 50B provides that “net worth” shall be the “aggregate value of total assets” of the undertaking, as reduced by the value of liabilities of such undertaking. (c) Further, explanation 2 to section 50B provides that, in the case of depreciable

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, 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

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

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaishri Omkareshwar Chidara

1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that transfer expenses of Rs.27,07,99,999/- for the purpose of computing capital gains on slump sale is an allowable deduction ignoring the fact that Section 50B of the Act is a special provision and a code

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being\naggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n9. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (\"learned\nAR\") submitted that the claim of depreciation in respect of manufacturing\ncontracts and supply/maintenance contracts was allowed by the Co-ordinate\nBench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PVT. LTD,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act does not arise. Accordingly, the contentions of the Ld. DR are rejected. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Thermo Fisher Scientific India (P) Ltd. (supra) has examined the issue of depreciation or goodwill recognized on purchase of unit under slump sale and held that depreciation is allowable

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being\naggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n9.\nDuring the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (\"learned\nAR\") submitted that the claim of depreciation in respect of manufacturing\ncontracts and supply/maintenance contracts was allowed by the Co-ordinate\nBench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment

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

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

1) Where a person carrying on any business or profession (such person hereinafter in this section being referred to as the predecessor) has been succeeded therein by any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the successor) who continues to carry on that business or profession:- (a) the predecessor shall be assessed in respect of the income

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

depreciation and related expenses on motor car, which we shall deal in seriatim. 4. The first Ground raised in appeal which pertains to the manner of computing Long Term Capital Gain in terms of section 50B of the Act. In this context, the relevant facts are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies