FUTURA POLYSTERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. In sum and substance, the Hon‘ble Apex Court had observed, that in terms of Sec. 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will be completed only when

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

depreciation allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned, if the assessing\nofficer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has\nescaped assessment for that assessment year by reason of the\nomission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return\nunder section 139 of the act for that assessment year

MANGMO TEXTILES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(3), MUMBAI

section 50, 32, 2 (11) 2 (47) of the Act and 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,he held that the assessee had sold depreciable

INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(3) -1, MUMBAI vs. ALFREIGHT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 5578/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-10(3)-1, M/S Alfreight International Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. 504, Mayuresh बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cosmos, Plot No. 37, Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Sector-11, Cbd Belapur Navi Mumbai-400 61 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5383K (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी / Assessee) :

depreciation of Rs. 12,699/-. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove, had observed as under: 9.1 I have gone through the assessment order and also the contention of the appellant before me. The major issue to be decided is whether conveyance of the property is made or not and whether transfer is complete in absence of full payment. From

ITO 2(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WALCHAND PEOPLE FIRST LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

depreciation loss of Rs. 20,30,368/- and set off the losses against the income from house property of Rs. 46,78,892/-. The A.O. asked the assessee company to furnish the activity-wise profit and loss account. In reply, the assessee company submitted that it is not practical to allocate expenses to all the three types of income/activities(investment

WALCHAND PEOPLE FIRST LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

depreciation loss of Rs. 20,30,368/- and set off the losses against the income from house property of Rs. 46,78,892/-. The A.O. asked the assessee company to furnish the activity-wise profit and loss account. In reply, the assessee company submitted that it is not practical to allocate expenses to all the three types of income/activities(investment

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

VISWAAT CHEMICALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-54, EARNEST HOUSE

In the result, original grounds no

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalviswaat Chemicals Limited, 909/910 Eco Star, Vishweshwar Nagar, Behind Udupi Vihae Hotel, Mumbai-400 063 Pan: Aaacv4184B ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cen. Cir. 6(3), 102, 1St Floor, Earnest House, Ncpa Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 ..... Respondent

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), the date on which he has so taken or retained possession of such land or part ;] (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), where an asset representing an expenditure of a capital nature [incurred before the 1st day of April 1967,] ceases to be used in a previous year

V.N. KARBHATKAR,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.-6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Shri V.N. Karbhatkar Income Tax Officer-19(3)(4) 4-5, Chapel Avenue Mumbai Vs. Chapel Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400050 Pan – Aacpk2651B Appellant Respondent

Depreciation of Rs.70,553 on car (registered at Vasai address but used for other business carried on at Bandra and Jogeshwari, income from which is taxed under the head "Income from Business") 5. The CIT (A) erred in confirming taxing of capital gains arising from transfer / relinquishment of tenancy right in Part of Ground Floor and entire first floor

PARVINCHAND NARINDERNATH SEHGAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

depreciation has been allowed under this Act or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), the provisions of sections 48 and 49 shall be subject to the following modifications :— (1) where the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the asset together with the full value of such consideration

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

depreciation of tea unit in Dharwad for the purpose of section 80IB. Allocation of research & Development expenses and interest expenses and while determining the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80IB – Ground No.5 & 6 14. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment held that the outcome of the research expenditure is futuristic in nature in the manufacturing

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR. - 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan Healthcare Ltd.,) Mumbai - 400020 (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Circle 7(1), Aayakar Ltd.,) Bhavan (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Joshi Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 29/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3927/Mum/2006 & 4066/Mum/2006 For A.Y.2002-03 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)Xix/It-104/05-06 Dated 31/03/2006 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/03/2005 By The Ld. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.

depreciation on knowhow, patent, copyrights, trade mark, license etc. acquired on or after 01.04.1998. It was observed by the A.O that as the purchase of computer software was in the nature of purchase of knowhow and a license to use the software, therefore, the explanation of the assessee that the expenditure incurred on the purchase of the same

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ) ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-50, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahadhan Agritech Ltd. (Formerly Cit(A)-50, Dcit Cen. 8(1), Known As Smartchem Technologies 656, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd.), Mumbai-400021. Survey No. 93, Sai Hira, Mundhwa, Pune-411036. Pan No. Aacca 5046 P Appellant Respondent

depreciation goodwill/intangible could have been could have been entertained, accordingly entertained, accordingly the assessee is permitted to withdraw said claim and the relevant assessee is permitted to withdraw said claim and the assessee is permitted to withdraw said claim and the grounds are rendered are rendered infructuous. 5. The ground No. 4 of the appeal relates to disallowance

ACIT 28 (2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. M/S NEEL SIDDHI DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

depreciable asset used for the purpose of business is to be taxed under the head "capital gain" Therefore, according to the CIT(A), the AO had taken a myopic view of the matter by holding that merely because an asset is a business asset, the gain on its sale will be taxed as business income. b. The AO has himself

DELUX SHIPPING AGENCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 2(1)(2), , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation of Rs.2,07,120/- on such premises. 5. In the appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse on the ground that registration of deed of property has taken place in F.Y.2014-15. The ld CIT(A) rejected the argument of the assessee that in terms of section 2(47)(v) of the Act , possession of property

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. RIA LABORATORIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7656/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Ria Laboratories Pvt. बनाम/ Tax -10(2), Ltd., V. Room No. 432, 4 Th Floor, 24, Shree Diamond Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, M.K. Road, Lbs Marg, Mumbai 400 020. Vikhroli West, Mumbai- 400 083. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aadcr2622R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). The assessee company submitted that it has taken the immovable property (plot) on lease for a period of 95 years. As per the provisions of section 27(iiib) read with clause (f) of section 269UA of the Act, where the period of lease is not less than 12 years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN EXPRESS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation on the same. This act in itself accepts that there has been expansion/setup during the relevant period. With these undisputed facts, the observation of the assessing officer referred to above does not seem to have any basis. The impugned amount is also eligible u7s. 35D(2) of the Act. Therefore, disallowance of Rs. 5,65,404/- claimed

ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI vs. ARVIND KUMAR AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.910/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-21(1) (Erstwhile बिधम/ Shri Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, Acit-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado Chsl, Vs Road, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 Co. No.147/Mum/2016 (Ita. No. 910/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-21(1) (Erstwhile Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, Acit-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado Chsl, Vs Road, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2137J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals As Well As Cross Objection Against The Order Dated 27.11.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. Ita. No.910/M/15 Co. No. 147/M/2016 A.Y. 2011-12

53A of the Transfer of Property Act and the CIT(A) was wrong allowing the claim of the exemption u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, the assessee has filed the cross-objection to treat the allotment of flat in view of allotment letter dated 02.06.1994. Initially flat was allotted to the assessee by virtue of letter dated