DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI vs. NOCIL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit 1(2), Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Nocil Limited, Mafatlal House, 3Rd Floor, Ht Parekh Marg, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai -400 020 .... Respondent

depreciation of Rs.10645.39 lacs for such years was not allowed to be carried forward in terms of section 72A(4) of the Act. 5.1 Section

DCIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDILA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1491/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 9(2)(2) Credila Financial Services R.No. 665A, 6 T H Floor, Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, B-301 Citi Point, V. Mumbai-400020 Next To Kohinoor Continental Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccc8789P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

depreciation. It was brought to our notice that Section 72A of the 1961 Act speaks of unabsorbed depreciation and losses

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CC-46, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation on the increased written down value of the assets, without appreciating the detailed reasons recorded in the relevant assessment order and the AO analysis of the provision of Explanation (2) and (3) to section 43(6) and the provision of section 72A

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation on the increased written down value of the assets, without appreciating the detailed reasons recorded in the relevant assessment order and the AO analysis of the provision of Explanation (2) and (3) to section 43(6) and the provision of section 72A

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation on the increased written down value of the assets, without appreciating the detailed reasons recorded in the relevant assessment order and the AO analysis of the provision of Explanation (2) and (3) to section 43(6) and the provision of section 72A

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation on the increased written down value of the assets, without appreciating the detailed reasons recorded in the relevant assessment order and the AO analysis of the provision of Explanation (2) and (3) to section 43(6) and the provision of section 72A

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation on the increased written down value of the assets, without appreciating the detailed reasons recorded in the relevant assessment order and the AO analysis of the provision of Explanation (2) and (3) to section 43(6) and the provision of section 72A

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation on the increased written down value of the assets, without appreciating the detailed reasons recorded in the relevant assessment order and the AO analysis of the provision of Explanation (2) and (3) to section 43(6) and the provision of section 72A

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation on the increased written down value of the assets, without appreciating the detailed reasons recorded in the relevant assessment order and the AO analysis of the provision of Explanation (2) and (3) to section 43(6) and the provision of section 72A

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation on the increased written down value of the assets, without appreciating the detailed reasons recorded in the relevant assessment order and the AO analysis of the provision of Explanation (2) and (3) to section 43(6) and the provision of section 72A

EMBIO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal for Ay 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhembio Limited Acit-15(1)(2), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Embio Limited Acit-15(1)(1), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Respondent By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

section 72A are applicable in A Y 2012-13 when the conditions as laid down U/S 72A(2)(iii) r.w rule 9C are not fulfilled. 2. The Learned AO erred in disallowing the brought forward business losses & unabsorbed depreciation

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

depreciation and section 72A, which provides for carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation in the hands of the amalgamated

STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LIMITED (ON BEHALF OF ERSTWHILE STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS(INDIA) LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-2, , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3793/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sterling Holiday Resorts बिधम/ Pcit-2 Limited (On Behalf Of Room No.344, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Erstwhile Sterling Holiday Aayakar Bhavan, Resorts (India) Limited) Mumbai-400020. Thomas Cook Building, D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct7079G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Smt Anne Varghese (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Only Issue On Which The Ld. Pcit Has Invoked His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act Is In Respect Of Following Issues: - (A) Carry Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation For Ay. 2004-5 To 2009-10 Of M/S. Manchanda Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Amounting To Rs.54,29,744/-. (B) Carry Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation For Ay. 2005-06, 2008-09 Of M/S. Sterling Holiday Resorts (I) Ltd., Amounting To Rs.5,51,57,288/-. (C) Carry Forward Business Loss Of M/S. Manchanda Resorts Pvt. Ltd. For Ay. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Amounting To Rs.7,16,96,555/-.”

depreciation of Manchanda resorts from AY. 2004-05 to 2009-10 of Rs.54,29,744/- and carry forward business loss of Rs.7,16,96,555/- for AY 2009-10 and 2010- 11. As per the provisions of sub section (1) of section 72A

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation of the demerged company, in so far as it pertained to the demerged undertaking, by erroneously relying upon the provisions of Section 72A

SIPRA ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Assessment Year: 2014-15

depreciation of Sinnar Unit to 84.54% of total losses of EEPL, by invoking the provision of section 72A(4)(b) of the Act. 3.3 In view

KEVA FRGRANCES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 4 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

depreciation calculated on 'actual cost' of capital asset in the hands of amalgamating company prior to amalgamation v) Section 43C(1): 'Cost' of stock-in-trade in the hands of amalgamated company to be taken the same as in the hands of amalgamating company held either as capital asset or stock-in-trade vi) Section 72A

THE DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

depreciation and accumulated business loss of GBDFC in terms of Section 72A of the Act as under:- AY Unabsorbed Business

SUNJEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

depreciation made in any previous year in the hands of the amalgamated company shall be deemed to be the income of the amalgamated company chargeable to tax for the year in which such conditions are not complied with. 9C. The conditions referred to in clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 72A