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

section 32 of the Act. Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. 20 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. (i) Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 65 (i) Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 65 (i) Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 65 taxmann.com 288 (Delhi) taxmann.com 288 (Delhi) In this decision

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

65,62,50,000/- was upwardly revised by ₹5,82,51,214/-. ii. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as per Rule 8D by computing the total disallowance of ₹1,182,24,87,180/- and further rejecting suo moto disallowance offered by the assessee of ₹21,89,85,725/- resulting into net disallowance of ₹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

65 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 (viia). The proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) will relate to cases covered under Section 36(1)(viia) and has to be read with Section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

65,399/- as claimed by the Appellant under section 36(1) (viii) of the Act. b) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had claimed deduction only in respect of loans having a term not less than five years in accordance with section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. c) The learned CIT(A) ought to have

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.

1) In following cases of succession of firm by a company as per Section 47(xiii), depreciation has been allowed on revalued amount: a) DCIT v Suyash Laboratories Ltd (2016) 65

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, 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

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

65,399/- as claimed by the Appellant under section 36(1) (viii) of the Act.\nb) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had claimed\ndeduction only in respect of loans having a term not less than five years in\naccordance with section 36(1)(viii) of the Act.\nc) The learned CIT(A) ought to have

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 under section 32 of the Act in the context of business transfer 32 of the Act in the context of business transfer through slump sale: Areva T & D India Ltd. 345 ITR 21 Areva T & D India Ltd. 345 ITR 21 Truine Energy Services (P) Ltd. 65 taxmann.com 238 Services (P) Ltd. 65 taxmann.com 238 Toyo Engineering India India

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 under section 32 of the Act in the context of business transfer 32 of the Act in the context of business transfer through slump sale: Areva T & D India Ltd. 345 ITR 21 Areva T & D India Ltd. 345 ITR 21 Truine Energy Services (P) Ltd. 65 taxmann.com 238 Services (P) Ltd. 65 taxmann.com 238 Toyo Engineering India India

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 under section 32 of the Act in the context of business transfer 32 of the Act in the context of business transfer through slump sale: Areva T & D India Ltd. 345 ITR 21 Areva T & D India Ltd. 345 ITR 21 Truine Energy Services (P) Ltd. 65 taxmann.com 238 Services (P) Ltd. 65 taxmann.com 238 Toyo Engineering India India

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 under section 32 of the Act in the context of business transfer 32 of the Act in the context of business transfer through slump sale: Areva T & D India Ltd. 345 ITR 21 Areva T & D India Ltd. 345 ITR 21 Truine Energy Services (P) Ltd. 65 taxmann.com 238 Services (P) Ltd. 65 taxmann.com 238 Toyo Engineering India India

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

1 to 160\nof the paper book filed by the assessee. It is noticed that assessing officer has\nspecifically asked the assessee vide notice dated 24.11.2016 to provide the detail\nof income tax reversal on distribution of unsecured perpetual securities. In this\nregard assessee has given detailed submission vide letter dated 16.12.2016\nstating that it has issued 11.4% unsecured perpetual

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

65,835, under section 36(1)(vii) being the amount of bad debts written-off (other than in respect of rural Svances). 5.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on explanation 2 to section 36(1) as inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 which is applicable from assessment years 2014-15 onwards. 6. Depreciation

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

65,835, under section 36(1)(vii) being the amount of bad debts written-off (other than in respect of rural Svances). 5.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on explanation 2 to section 36(1) as inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 which is applicable from assessment years 2014-15 onwards. 6. Depreciation

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

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal