EMBIO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD) 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2010-11

72A(2) of the Act, which reads as under:- “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the accumulated loss shall not be set off or carried forward and the unabsorbed depreciation

DCIT, RANGE- 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOTEL LEELA VENTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by th

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Hotel Leela Venture Ltd., Tax, Range 8(2), The Leela Kempinski Sahar, R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri (East), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400059. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach 3167 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Prakash K. Jotwani, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022

72A will override the applicability of the provisions of plicability of the provisions of section 79 of the Act, without appreciating that in the section 79 of the Act, without appreciating that in the section 79 of the Act, without appreciating that in the assessment order dated 29.12.2008 for AY 2006 assessment order dated

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

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

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

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

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

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL -JOINT -DEPUTY-ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- ITO, DELHI

depreciation were allowed for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim under Section 72A(4). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the Assessee's appeals were partly allowed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 72A(2

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

2) of section 263 stipulates that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. That period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the original order of assessment dated

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

2, Pg. 155, Argument of Assessee – Para 8, Pg. 161, Held: Para 12, Pg. 154-169 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) 65. The Appellant further submits that doing business through subsidiaries/JVs is also recognized legal business concept. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. State of UP and Others VsRenusagar Power Co. and Others

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

2, Pg. 155, Argument of Assessee – Para 8, Pg. 161, Held: Para 12, Pg. 154-169 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) 65. The Appellant further submits that doing business through subsidiaries/JVs is also recognized legal business concept. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. State of UP and Others VsRenusagar Power Co. and Others

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

2(19AA) of the Act and, therefore, it would not attract the provisions of section 72A(4) of the Act. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. A perusal of sub- section(4) of section 72A of the Act, which we have extracted earlier, brings (Assessment Year 2004-05) out that the restriction contained therein with regard

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

2)", "Section 72A(4)", "Section 32(1)", "Section 115JB", "Section 10(38)", "Section 234B" ], "issues": "The primary issues involved were the validity of disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the eligibility for set off of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation

SUPREME PETROCHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 72A, where there is an amalgamation between two companies, the accumulated loss and the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company shall deemed to be loss or unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamated company for the previous year in which amalgamation was affected. The appellant submits that the amalgamation was affected in the assessment year under appeal and hence

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)

72A of the 1961 Act speaks of unabsorbed depreciation and losses separately and hence where-ever the legislature wanted reference to unabsorbed depreciation in contradistinction to unabsorbed losses, the terms is separately used by the legislature and since Section 79 does not speak of unabsorbed depreciation, the scope cannot be expanded by implication by the Courts. It is contended that