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

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

54,78,170 187,95,47,817 ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 return (based on 2001 census) As per revised 1460,96,93,335 146,09,69,333 working submitted during assessment proceedings (based on 2011 census) Claim suo moto 41,85,78,484 reduced by assessee Thus, Bank has suo moto reduced its claim under section 36(1

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

54. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in disallowing deduction claimed by assessee under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act being the amount of Bad Debts written off (other than in respect of rural advances). For this assessee raised the following ground

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

1), which reads as under: Provided also that the aggregate deduction, in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred

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

1), which reads as under: Provided also that the aggregate deduction, in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act on the same and reduce the total income accordingly. 46. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly submits that, as on now, the issue is covered, against the assessee, by decisions of the coordinate benches, and he does not, therefore, press the issue any further. Obviously, however, he retains his right to carry the matter

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act on the same and reduce the total income accordingly. 46. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly submits that, as on now, the issue is covered, against the assessee, by decisions of the coordinate benches, and he does not, therefore, press the issue any further. Obviously, however, he retains his right to carry the matter

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation including statement of\nprofit and loss for such\n18\nI.T.A. No. 424/Mum/2020\nI.T.A. No. 882/Mum/2020\nfinancial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant\nprevious year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than\nreferred to in Clause (b). According to clause (a), for the purpose

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

1) of the Act to the assessee.After considering the submission of the assessee,about setting off of unabsorbed depreciation, the held that contention of the assessee with regard to section 71 permitting setting off of business loss against STCG and LTCG was incorrect, that provisions of section 71 (3)did not allow set off of capital loss against business income

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation provided in earlier years is reduced. Further, the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Deutsche Bank A.G vs. DCIT [2003] 86 ITD 431 (Mumbai), relied by the AO is in connection with valuation of foreign exchange forward contracts. In this case the assessee did not account for in the financial statement the anticipated/contingent profits from

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation provided in earlier years is reduced. Further, the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Deutsche Bank A.G vs. DCIT [2003] 86 ITD 431 (Mumbai), relied by the AO is in connection with valuation of foreign exchange forward contracts. In this case the assessee did not account for in the financial statement the anticipated/contingent profits from

RISHABH METALS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CPC, DCIT -CIR 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerishabh Metals & Chemicals V. Dcit-Circle -1(3)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 4Th Floor, Eross Theatre Bldg Mumbai - 400020 Jt Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr2214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

depreciation). Each of these deductions has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions would render the claim vulnerable

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

1)(b) provides that deduction of any expenditure incurred by the assessee, whether before or after such commercial production in respect of drilling or exploration activities or services or in respect of physical assets used in connection with business except the assets on which depreciation is admissible under section 32 of the Act. After carefully analyzing the provisions, we observe

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

depreciation is a statutory allowance u/s 32 of the Act relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into

WIND WORLD INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad-in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

J.N INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad-in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad-in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. Principal CIT erred in passing the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which is illegal, bad-in-law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant