TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

66 Taxmann 258 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. In this case also, the issue involved was interpretation of provisions of Sections 50 and 55(2)(ab) of the Act. The issue was whether the assessee company was entitled to claim cost of shares as per 12 Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. Section 50 of the Act or whether

VODAFONE IDEA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -5, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

section 263 of the Act as depreciation claim has been allowed without making enquiry and relied upon the case cited as Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 109 taxman 66

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

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

CINERAD COMMUNICATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-3(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

66,97,490/- as the same was added by the Appellant to the current depreciation of INR 10,30,001/- as per Section

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

depreciation on the cost of membership card. This implies that the legislature in its wisdom has considered the scenario of double deduction while bringing in such amendment. In such cases, it cannot be inferred that the benefit granted to the assessee was unintentional and shall not be allowed to the assessee. When the language of the section is so clear

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

66,346.\n5.2 In making a disallowance under section 36 read with section 37 of the Act\nwhich lacks basis and is contrary to law.\n6. Ground No. 6: Short-grant of TDS credit in the assessment order\namounting to INR 12,14,349\nThe learned AO, erred in law and facts, in granting TDS credit

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

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

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

depreciation on the cost of membership card. This implies that the legislature in its wisdom has considered the scenario of double deduction while bringing in such ITA. No.2522/Mum/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 amendment. In such cases, it cannot be inferred that the benefit granted to the assessee was unintentional and shall not be allowed to the assessee. When the language

ASIAN ADVERTISING,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2349/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Asian Advertising, Ito – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chambers, Mumbai. V. 66, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafa1477D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

66, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAAFA1477D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hemant J. Vora Revenue by : Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 19-01-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 23/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. Disallowance of depreciation of INR 12,66

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 80HHE and this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 22. Depreciation on Software Expenses (Ground No.4) 23. The Assessee contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer did not allow depreciation on the WDV of Software expenses which were treated as capital in nature for A.Y. 2002-03. The Assessee submitted the below working of depreciation in this

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

section 143(3) vide order\ndated 30.03.2015.\n5. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed\nthat the assessee had acquired Hotel Leela, Kovalam as a going\nconcern under slump sale from M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Ltd.\nThe assessee claimed depreciation aggregating to Rs.\n25,86,15,073/- on the assets so acquired. The Assessing Officer\nthen examined

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

depreciation as per section 32 of the Act. However, the AO allowed the amortization of expenditure incurred on the said road amounting to Rs.43,66

M/S ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

depreciation as per section 32 of the Act. However, the AO allowed the amortization of expenditure incurred on the said road amounting to Rs.43,66

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1), MUMBAI

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

depreciation as per section 32 of the Act. However, the AO allowed the amortization of expenditure incurred on the said road amounting to Rs.43,66

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

depreciation as per section 32 of the Act. However, the AO allowed the amortization of expenditure incurred on the said road amounting to Rs.43,66

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

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

depreciation as per section 32 of the Act. However, the AO allowed the amortization of expenditure incurred on the said road amounting to Rs.43,66