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

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)(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

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 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

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

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

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 on the written down value of the assets received from the merged company. The Assessing Officer was of the view that conditions stipulated under section 72A(2

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the total income of the company shall be computed, - (i) without any deduction under the provisions of section 10AA or clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or subclause (iii) of sub-section

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

72A(2) as applicable for A.Y.2003-04 are reproduced 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

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

2 to Section 32(1): 'Written down value of the block of assets' shall have the same meaning as in section 43(6)(c) iv) 5th proviso to Section 32(1): Restrictions on depreciation in the hands of amalgamating company and amalgamated company in the previous year to the depreciation calculated on 'actual cost' of capital asset in the hands