DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

depreciation relatable to the steel purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

depreciation relatable to the steel purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

depreciation relatable to the steel purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

depreciation relatable to the steel purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

section 80G: Rs. 2,05,58,406/- Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets: Rs.12,42,89,747/- Being aggrieved by the final

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. NTT GLOBAL DATA CENTERS CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16

747, is claimed as a deduction computation of income. In support of the aforesaid submission, the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS v/s CIT, reported in (2013) 350 ITR 527. 5 8. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 28/12/2018 passed under section 143(3) read with section 92CA

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed holding that the learned CIT appeal is correct in allowing

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation @10% on assets acquired during the financial year 2012-13 amounting to Rs.70,31,74,747 under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Accordingly

M/S DHARMANDAN DIAMONDS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT-5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11. M/S Dharmandan Diamonds Vs. Addl. C.I.T.-5(1), Mumbai. Pvt. Ltd., Ayakar Bhawan, M.K.Marg Fc 7081-7082, Bharat Mumbai-400021 Diamond Bourse, B.K.C., Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Appellant Respondent

747/- (total depreciation of Rs.22,38,18,892/-). The AO found that on conversion of partnership firm into private limited company w.e.f. 01.09.2007, the erstwhile firm had claimed depreciation upto 31.08.2007 and the depreciation is claimed in the case of the company from 01.09.2007 to 31.03.2008 for AY 2008-09 on the basis of WDV of the assets. However

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section). Please furnish the detailed explanation in this regard.\n7.\nExplanatory note on Mismatch in expenditure of personal nature reported in\nAudit Report and ITR\n8.\nExplanatory note on Lower amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in ITR(Part A-\nOI) in comparison to audit report\n9.\nExplanatory note on Item Any other amount allowable as deduction in\nSchedule

DOSTI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

depreciation, ignoring the provision of AS-14, scheme of merger approved by High Court & accepted by Income Tax Department, is bad in law and needs to be cancelled. 3. Expenditure capitalized to Work In Progress of Rs. 1,01,02,054/- a. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

depreciation on the same.\n\n54. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who had\nallowed assessee's claim by relying on his own order for A.Y. 2010-12 and 2012-13\nwhich had inturn relied on the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2001-02 and 2003-04,\nwhere the revenue share license

DIAGNOSEARCH LIFESCIENCES P.LTD (PREVIOUSLY KWNON AS IGATE CLINICAL RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL P.LTD),THANE vs. ACIT (OSD) 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 12 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J P Boaz & Shri Amit Shukla

section 1 44C( 13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer u/s. 92CA(3), in determining the proportionate Arm's Length Price of international transactions entered into by appellant at Rs,10,12,64,747/- as against the actual revenue received Rs. 5,49,70,581/- and thereby making an addition

ESQUE FINMARK PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-47, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Blem/S. Esquefinmark Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle – 47 9A, Chunawala Compound Room No. 658/676 Parel Tank Road Aayakar Bhavan Kalachowki, Mumbai - 400033 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaace8307P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Hema Kataria Department By D.K. Gupta

747/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 4,62,322/-which were claimed in return filed u/s 153A of the Act and not in the return filed u/s. 139 of the Act. Vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for A.Y. 2011-12 of the Act, the AO disallowed the said claim

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PENINSULA LAND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 32(1)(i) read with Appendix-I, Part- A division III (1) to the I.T. Rules, 1962. With effect from 1.4.2003, Computer Software has been classified as a tangible asset under the heading "Plant" in Appendix-I to the IT rules entitled to depreciation at 60%. The assesses would be entitled to depreciation at 60% from

PENINSULA LAND LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 32(1)(i) read with Appendix-I, Part- A division III (1) to the I.T. Rules, 1962. With effect from 1.4.2003, Computer Software has been classified as a tangible asset under the heading "Plant" in Appendix-I to the IT rules entitled to depreciation at 60%. The assesses would be entitled to depreciation at 60% from

ITO 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. KITEC INDUSTRIES (IND) LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, Vp & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4535/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 3 10 of Company Act, there is a provision of law that if remuneration is increased by the Company it is not void unless disapproved by the Government. Here in this case 8 I.T.A. No. 4535/Mum/2013 Kitec Industries (Ind) Ltd. remuneration has been fixed as per the resolution which was still valid upto the end of the accounting year

ICICI SECURITIES LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS ICICI BROKERAGE SERVICES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of department is dismissed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2006-07

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and thus, depreciation on the said asset is not allowable. Thus, the ld. Representative agrees that the issue is covered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. As such, this Ground of appeal is dismissed. 6. The next issue pertains to disallowance of Client Assistance Charges and Client Maintenance Charges paid

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

747 23,84,328 Annuities, less re- insurance 9,286 4,076 Surrenders (incl. sur Single premiums Less: 13,00,401 12,17,250 Reinsurance (38,177) (19,075) bonus) less re- insurance Bonuses in cash, less re- Consideration for insurance Annuities granted, less reinsurance 56,434 17,904 6,92,979 6,27,033 Bonuses in reduction of Interest