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

section 32(1)(ii) of\nthe Act, the AO held that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation on\ngoodwill. Further, by referring to the provisions of Explanation (7

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciable asset and assessee has neither challenged the applicability of Section 50 of the Act nor has it challenged the income determined in accordance with the Section 50. The issue before us is, whether the rate of tax which is to be determined u/s.112 of the Act shall be applicable if asset is a long term capital asset held

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

section 32(1)(ii) of\nthe Act, the AO held that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation on\ngoodwill. Further, by referring to the provisions of Explanation (7

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

section 94(7) of the Act and with respect to penalty imposed on addition made for legal and professional fee, the issue was restored back by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the nature of expenditure, thus, the penalty so imposed was set aside to the file of Assessing Officer

FOUR DIMENSIONS SECURITIES (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

section 94(7) of the Act and with respect to penalty imposed on addition made for legal and professional fee, the issue was restored back by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the nature of expenditure, thus, the penalty so imposed was set aside to the file of Assessing Officer

DCIT -4(1), MUMBAI vs. FOUR DIMENSION SECURITIES (I) LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

section 94(7) of the Act and with respect to penalty imposed on addition made for legal and professional fee, the issue was restored back by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the nature of expenditure, thus, the penalty so imposed was set aside to the file of Assessing Officer

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

7 of Section 101A of the Insurance Act cannot be treated as a ―pronoun‖ or a ―noun‖ and should be read as a ―verb‖. This is more so because, there is no separate definition provided for ―other 17 M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., insurer‖ and considering the scheme of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, ―other insurer‖ should

SUREPREP (INDIA)P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

Section 10A(7) r.w.s. 801 A(8) and (10) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Income Tax officer in holding that unabsorbed depreciation

SUREPREP (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

Section 10A(7) r.w.s. 801 A(8) and (10) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Income Tax officer in holding that unabsorbed depreciation

SUREPREP (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2243/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं.5523/मुं/2013 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं.5855/मुं/2014 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S. Sureprep (India) Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Dhantak Plaza, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 034. Pan: Aahcs-9039-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3)(2), 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dalpat Shah & Ms. Arti Shah "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Samrudhi Dhananjay Hande & Shri P.D. Chougule सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Three Appeals By The Assessee For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical. The Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ], Dated 02/01/2013

Section 10A(7) r.w.s. 801 A(8) and (10) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the learned Income Tax officer in holding that unabsorbed depreciation

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.

depreciation on the revalued cost of the trademark to the file of the CIT (A). Para 7 of the said Tribunal‟s order (supra) is relevant in this regard. In the additional grounds, extracted above, it is evident that the assessee questioned the applicability of Explanation-3 to section

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciable asset and assessee has neither\nchallenged the applicability of Section 50 of the Act nor has it challenged the income\ndetermined in accordance with the Section 50. The issue before us is, whether the\nrate of tax which is to be determined u/s.112 of the Act shall be applicable if asset is\na long term capital asset held

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

7 to section 43(1), explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c) and sixth proviso to section 32(1) were not raised before Hon'ble SC. Hence, there was no question of law before SC which required them to answer if depreciation

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

7 to section 43(1), explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c) and sixth proviso to section 32(1) were not raised before Hon'ble SC. Hence, there was no question of law before SC which required them to answer if depreciation

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

Section 111(m) is not applicable as the Yacht was declared properly. From the above, it is seen that the SCN has alleged that the Yacht was purchased for personal purposes only. However, the allegation raised by the SCN was neither answered nor rejected. From the above, it is crystal clear that the Yacht was purchased for personal purposes only

YASH DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 27(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Yash Developers, Dcit-27(3), 1St Flr Anand, 7Th Road, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Maryland Apartment, D.K. Vs. Station Complex, Sandhu Marg, Chembur, Vashi-400703 Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaafy 6171 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harmesh Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

7) of Section 154 of the Act by of the Act by Yash Developers 9 the Apex Court in Hind Ware Industries (supra), the the Apex Court in Hind Ware Industries (supra), the the Apex Court in Hind Ware Industries (supra), the inescapable conclusion would be that the ori inescapable conclusion would be that the original order ginal order

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act and\nnot just a proportion of the said amount as deductible revenue expenditure\nsince the payees have discharged their tax liability on the non-compete fee\npaid by the Appellant by furnishing their return of income during the subject\nyear.\n7. Ground 7 - Allowance of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

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 ()

section 43(1) of the Act, to hold that assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the relevant explanation is reproduced as under: explanation is reproduced as under: “Explanation 7