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

63,00,000/–. Firstly, there was no claim before the assessing officer. The claim was made before the learned CIT – A. The learned CIT – A after obtaining the remand report of the AO denied the depreciation to the assessee. ITA No.2108, 2132/Mum/2018 & CO 110/Mum/2019; A.Y. 2014-15 The reasons given by the learned CIT – A4 disallowance of depreciation on goodwill

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 ()

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts

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 ()

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, 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 ()

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts

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 ()

depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of depreciation on the amount of the goodwill recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts of the assessee under the BTA between the assessee and accounts

M/S. CRODA INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

63,45,03,800/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 18/12/2019 determining total income of the assessee at Rs 64,43,67,550/- after making disallowance u/s 35(2AB) of the Act in the sum of Rs 62,90,501/- and disallowance

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

63,72,233/-. Appellant had claimed a deduction of 54F from the sale consideration received from the sale of commercial and residential property. However, AO had denied appellant's claim u/s 54F on sale of commercial property on observing that as appellant had claimed depreciation for commercial property, hence section

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Section 80G are not fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground.\"\n22. Respectfully following the decisions referred above, we set\naside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition,\nthus allowing the ground of appeal.\n23.Ground no.V relates to non granting of credit of TCS of Rs.\n1,63,195/-.\n24. Before us, the ld.AR

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

depreciation is claimed under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32;\nand\n(c)which was or has been used for the purposes of business, is sold, discarded, demolished or\ndestroyed and the moneys payable in respect of such building machinery, plant or furniture, as\nthe case may be, together with the amount of scrap value

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

depreciation under section 32\nof the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.5,03,462/- made by the AO in the\nhands of the assessee is upheld. As a result, Ground no.1 raised in the\nassessee's appeal is dismissed.\n16. The issue arising in Ground no.2, raised in the assessee's appeal,\npertains to the disallowance of expenditure on account

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation claimed by the assessee under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. As a result ground No. 7, raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 55. Ground no.8 raised in assessee‟s appeal seeking the cost of this appeal was not pressed during the hearing. Therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 56. Vide application dated 03/07/2006

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation claimed by the assessee under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. As a result ground No. 7, raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 55. Ground no.8 raised in assessee‟s appeal seeking the cost of this appeal was not pressed during the hearing. Therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 56. Vide application dated 03/07/2006

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

depreciation on the same. 3.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee-company also issued and allotted 2,73,82,700 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at par to the ‘promoter group’ of the company and 2,63,08,700 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at premium of Rs.10/- per share to other persons. 3.2 The shares to the promoters

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

depreciation on the same. 3.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee-company also issued and allotted 2,73,82,700 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at par to the ‘promoter group’ of the company and 2,63,08,700 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at premium of Rs.10/- per share to other persons. 3.2 The shares to the promoters

HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S.Huntsman International (India) Private Limited, B-Wing, Lighthall, Hiranandani Business Park, Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai 400 072 Pan: Aaach9149J ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent The Dcit, 10(1)(1), Mumbai. ..... Appellant

section 143(3) r.w.s 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 26 November 2015 (received on 30 November 2015) passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (' AO') incorporating the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') for the aforesaid assessment year on the following grounds: Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance of the corporate service

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

depreciation on assets amounting to Rs. 6,92,248/-. 3 I.T.A. No. 6023/Mum/2025 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is in respect of the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had invested in equity- oriented

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and consequently held the revenue’s cross objection regarding amortization of the cost as academic. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, despite the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of depreciation @ 25% on intangible asset and instead allowed only 10% depreciation following