ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN STAR DIAMONDS ITERNATIONAL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Depreciation as per chart 315127 3210878 u/s.32 65918392 Income from other sources Fixed deposit interest 2895751 Gross Total Income 68814143 Total income (rounded off 68814140 u/s.288A) 4.3. The AO observed that though the appellant had declared undisclosed income of Rs.13,47,63,640/- in the form of stock of polished diamonds under the head profit and gains of the business

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

depreciation on the motor car. Assessee being further aggrieved with\nthis order preferred the present appeal before us and there is no appeal by the\nrevenue in this year against the order of the Ld. CIT (A). We have gone through\nthe order of AO, Order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submission of the assessee along\nwith grounds raised

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69,51,32,947 5,43,95,00,000 2,74,43,67,053 7 M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., TML Holdings Pte Ltd - Equity 4,16,66,70 5 shares 0 1,77,75,59,755 785/582 2,39,75,67,711 4,53,29,20,293 2,13,53,52,582 Sale of Magna Dies (Capital 6 Item

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Depreciation and Business Loss which would have been available for set-off against Business Profits in future which would be taxable at maximum marginal rate of 30% (plus applicable surcharge and cess) against foreign dividend income which are taxable at 15% (plus applicable surcharge and cess). In view of the above, it is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer

NUTECH ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

69,366/-. The learned Assessing Officer (AO for short) issued a show-cause notice asking the appellant as to why Long term capital gains should not be treated as short term capital gains as per section 50 of the Income Tax Act (Act for short) as the capital asset sold was a depreciable

M/S. KLAUS WAREN FIXTURES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

depreciation of earlier years as accepted by the Revenue amounts to denying the legitimate adjustment in the computation of Book profit u/s 115JB, hence, the Order u/s. 154 is bad in law and the benefit of adjustment may be granted. ii) Without prejudice to above, the amended provision of Sec. 115BBE(2) applicable w.e.f AY 2017-18 is prospective

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

Section 55(2)(ab) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act 2003, with effect from 1-4-2004 provided that cost of the trading or 4 Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. clearing right of the recognized stock exchange shall be deemed to be Nil. 6. From the assessment year 2006-07 onwards, the assessee has not claimed any depreciation

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

69,527/-, claiming deduction from\n'Income from Business or Profession'. The ld. AO after duly considering the assessee's\nsubmission, passed the draft assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(1) of the Act,\ndated 29.09.2021, determining total income at Rs.14,27,19,759/- by making an addition\nof Rs.15,20,19,347/-, after deducting the unabsorbed brought forward depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI vs. AVER SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Section 148 of the Act. The\nreassessment proceedings culminated into passing of the\nAssessment Order, dated 30/03/2015 under 143(3) read with\nSection 147 of the Act assessing taxable income of the Assessee at\nINR.101.40 Lacs after making (a) addition of INR.29.08 Lacs under\nSection 69 of the Act, (b) disallowing of depreciation

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give benefit on whole deposit of Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal- A.Y.2007-08 - A.Y.2008-09 - A.Y.2009-10 - A.Y.2010-11 - A.Y.2011-12 - A.Y.2012-13

depreciation on the motor car. Assessee being further aggrieved with this order preferred the present appeal before us and there is no appeal by the revenue in this year against the order of the Ld. CIT (A). We have gone through the order of AO, Order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submission of the assessee along Mrs. JYOTI AJIT

L,OREAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhl‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle-7(1)(2) A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Aayakar Bhavan, Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, M.K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Vs. Pan: Aaacl0738K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 .07.2020 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

section 69 of the Act. The ITA No. 7204 Mum 2019-L‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. AO also disallowed the depreciation

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

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

section 69 of the Act which he had failed to do. (ii) Assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act on its export of Coenzyme Q10 from Massar Plant was allowed by the AO without causing necessary enquiries to ascertain the veracity of its claim that it is exporting the co-enzyme Q10 to UAE at an average

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

section 69 of the Act which he had failed to do. (ii) Assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act on its export of Coenzyme Q10 from Massar Plant was allowed by the AO without causing necessary enquiries to ascertain the veracity of its claim that it is exporting the co-enzyme Q10 to UAE at an average

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

section 69 of the Act which he had failed to do. (ii) Assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act on its export of Coenzyme Q10 from Massar Plant was allowed by the AO without causing necessary enquiries to ascertain the veracity of its claim that it is exporting the co-enzyme Q10 to UAE at an average

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

section 69 of the Act which he had failed to do. (ii) Assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act on its export of Coenzyme Q10 from Massar Plant was allowed by the AO without causing necessary enquiries to ascertain the veracity of its claim that it is exporting the co-enzyme Q10 to UAE at an average

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

section 69 of the Act which he had failed to do. (ii) Assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act on its export of Coenzyme Q10 from Massar Plant was allowed by the AO without causing necessary enquiries to ascertain the veracity of its claim that it is exporting the co-enzyme Q10 to UAE at an average