ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

depreciable asset for arriving at the cost of acquisition when the assessee exercises option incases falling under section 49 of the Act. The provisions of section 50(2) of the Act are not exclusive but they are dependent upon certain conditions mentioned in section 49 of the Act. The only provision which gives an option in section 55

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

depreciable asset for arriving at the cost of acquisition when the assessee exercises option incases falling under section 49 of the Act. The provisions of section 50(2) of the Act are not exclusive but they are dependent upon certain conditions mentioned in section 49 of the Act. The only provision which gives an option in section 55

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

depreciable asset for arriving at the cost of acquisition when the assessee exercises option incases falling under section 49 of the Act. The provisions of section 50(2) of the Act are not exclusive but they are dependent upon certain conditions mentioned in section 49 of the Act. The only provision which gives an option in section 55

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

depreciable asset for arriving at the cost of acquisition when the assessee exercises option incases falling under section 49 of the Act. The provisions of section 50(2) of the Act are not exclusive but they are dependent upon certain conditions mentioned in section 49 of the Act. The only provision which gives an option in section 55

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

section 55(2)(ab) of the Act even though the assessee has claimed depreciation on the cost of membership card

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

Section 50 or 55(2)(ab) of the Act in a situation where the assessee had already claimed depreciation on the BSE membership

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

55 of CIT(A) Order). The Ld CIT(A) also denied the claim of expenses/losses incurred by the assessee even if section 11 was denied by holding that the assessee had not established the fulfillment of condition for claiming expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. (Pg. 69 of CIT(A) Order). 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ITAT

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

55 of CIT(A) Order). The Ld CIT(A) also denied the claim of expenses/losses incurred by the assessee even if section 11 was denied by holding that the assessee had not established the fulfillment of condition for claiming expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. (Pg. 69 of CIT(A) Order). 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ITAT

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

55 of CIT(A) Order). The Ld CIT(A) also denied the claim of expenses/losses incurred by the assessee even if section 11 was denied by holding that the assessee had not established the fulfillment of condition for claiming expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. (Pg. 69 of CIT(A) Order). 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ITAT

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

55 of CIT(A) Order). The Ld CIT(A) also denied the claim of expenses/losses incurred by the assessee even if section 11 was denied by holding that the assessee had not established the fulfillment of condition for claiming expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. (Pg. 69 of CIT(A) Order). 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ITAT

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

55 of CIT(A) Order). The Ld CIT(A) also denied the claim of expenses/losses incurred by the assessee even if section 11 was denied by holding that the assessee had not established the fulfillment of condition for claiming expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. (Pg. 69 of CIT(A) Order). 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ITAT

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

55. As the depreciable capital assets have also availed depreciation allowance under section 32, section 50 provides for a special procedure for computation of capital gains in the case of depreciable assets. Section 50(1) deals with the cases where any block of depreciable assets do not cease to exist on account of transfer and Section 50(2

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

section 2(15) of the Act, nonetheless the test of dominant object of an entity would be relevant to determine whether the entity is carrying on business or not. In the present case, there is little doubt that the objects of the activities of the petitioner are entirely for charitable purposes. WP(C) 1872/13 Page 48 of 55 Finally

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

section 2(15) of the Act, nonetheless the test of dominant object of an entity would be relevant to determine whether the entity is carrying on business or not. In the present case, there is little doubt that the objects of the activities of the petitioner are entirely for charitable purposes. WP(C) 1872/13 Page 48 of 55 Finally

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

section 2(15) of the Act, nonetheless the test of dominant object of an entity would be relevant to determine whether the entity is carrying on business or not. In the present case, there is little doubt that the objects of the activities of the petitioner are entirely for charitable purposes. WP(C) 1872/13 Page 48 of 55 Finally

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 2(15) of the Act, nonetheless the test of dominant object of an entity would be relevant to determine whether the entity is carrying on business or not. In the present case, there is little doubt that the objects of the activities of the petitioner are entirely for charitable purposes. WP(C) 1872/13 Page 48 of 55 Finally

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

55. As the depreciable capital assets have also availed depreciation allowance under section 32, section 50 provides for a special procedure for computation of capital gains in the case of depreciable assets. Section 50(1) deals with the cases where any block of depreciable assets do not cease to exist on account of transfer and Section 50(2

TWIN EARTH SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2640/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

depreciation on the BSE card in the earlier years and taking the original cost of BSE card as the cost of acquisition amounts to claiming double deduction on the same asset. The assesse company submitted that the above cost is to be taken as cost of acquisition in accordance with Section 55(2

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

depreciation, when the Delhi High Court in the case of Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the Charanjiv Charitable Trust and Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs CIT 76 DTR (Ker) 372 case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs CIT 76 DTR (Ker) 372 case