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

section 170 or to ITA No.2108, 2132/Mum/2018 & CO 110/Mum/2019; A.Y. 2014-15 the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the case of amalgamation, or to the demerged company and the resulting company in the case of demerger, as the case may be, shall not exceed in any previous year the deduction calculated at the prescribed rates

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

section 170 or to ITA No.2108, 2132/Mum/2018 & CO 110/Mum/2019; A.Y. 2014-15 the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company in the case of amalgamation, or to the demerged company and the resulting company in the case of demerger, as the case may be, shall not exceed in any previous year the deduction calculated at the prescribed rates

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

57 ITR 540 (AP) - this decision is in the context of Proviso to section 10(5)(a) which is similar to Explanation 3 to section 43(1). As hon'ble CIT(A) has stated that AO was not justified in disallowing the appellant's claim as per Explanation 3, this decision is not applicable in the present situation

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

section 43(1) of the Act. The balance amount of the slump sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 439,07,65,750/-, was treated as attributable to land. 15. The details are tabulated below: Particulars WDV on date of Rate Depreciation WDV after transfer (Rs.) (Rs.) depreciation (Rs.) Building 31,25,79,075 10% 3,12,57

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

section 43(1) of the Act. The balance amount of the slump sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 439,07,65,750/-, was treated as attributable to land. 15. The details are tabulated below: Particulars WDV on date of Rate Depreciation WDV after transfer (Rs.) (Rs.) depreciation (Rs.) Building 31,25,79,075 10% 3,12,57

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciation amounting to INR 447,13,85,156 under section 32(1)(ii) on the right to use 3G spectrum by treating it as an intangible asset. Also, deduction of INR 37,57

HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for A

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation of AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively. During the course of assessment he AO has made the following disallowances. Amount (`) Sr. No. Particulars Disallowance of remuneration paid to Management Graduates on the a 94,11,607 grounds that the expenditure is capital in nature b Foreign exchange for foreign travel 81,841 Total 94,93,448 5. Similarly

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

57,58,800\n14. Accordingly, in the return of income, the assessee based on the report\nfrom the independent valuer had claimed depreciation at the rate of 25%\napplicable to the block of intangible assets under section

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

57,58,800\n14. Accordingly, in the return of income, the assessee based on the report\nfrom the independent valuer had claimed depreciation at the rate of 25%\napplicable to the block of intangible assets under section

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

depreciation amounting to Rs.1,04,938/- purchase of software. purchase of software. 4. Ground 4 Ground 4 - Deletion of erroneous demand of Rs. Deletion of erroneous demand of Rs. 80,79,043 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. 4 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. 4.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

57,10,001/-, u/s.115JB of the Act. Further,\nthe assessee has also offered long term capital gain at Rs.7,64,34,724/- @ 20% for\nwhich the assessee has paid its tax as per the MAT provisions as the same was higher\nthan the tax computed as per the normal provisions of the Act. The ld. AO during the\nassessment proceedings

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Idea Cellular Limited Principal Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Income Tax-14, Century Mills Compound, 469, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacb2100P

section revised ROI filed on July 19, 139(5) of the Act 2013 with the AO (see page No. 50 to 57 of APB) 5. Depreciation

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

57,907/-.On this basis, depreciation was recomputed at\nRs. 6,80,23,443/- as against the depreciation of Rs.\n25,86,15,073/- claimed by the\nassessee, resulting in a\ndisallowance of Rs. 19,05,91,629/-.\n17. The assessee carried the matter before CIT(A), who noted the\nfacts from the order of Assessing Officer and further noted

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

57 taxmann.com 85 (SC) although given in context of Section 80HHC of the Act , and also by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal NO.1501 of 2008 vide order dated 19/09/2013 reported in (2014)48taxmann.com 357(SC) , wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Himatsingike Seide Ltd. vs CIT approved the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

section (1) of section 13 of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008” 14.30. In pursuance to the aforesaid rule, an order dated 09th May, 2006 was issued by concerned official of MOCA which reads as under:- “ ORDER Subject: Collection of Passenger Service Fee (PSF) at. Greenfield / Private airports - regarding Consequent to allowing private companies, Joint Venture. Companies

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

depreciation on goodwill.\n15. Ground no.III pertains to the disallowance of the claim of\nLeave Encashment Rs.1,08,99,749/- and bonus of Rs.1,41,45,067/- u/s\n43B of the Act.\n16. It is submitted by the ld.AR that during assessment\nproceedings, the assessee had requested the AO vide letter to grant a\ndeduction for payment towards leave encashment

3A COMPOSITES INDIA PRIVATE LIMIED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

57,103\n6.\nThe ld. A.O. did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held that based\non the provision of section 50C of the Act, the depreciation

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

depreciation is not available to the successor LLP. It is proposed that the transfer of assets on conversion of a company into an LLP in accordance with section 56 and section 57