M/S. BIRLA EDUTECH LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation by invoking the provisions of section 79 of the Act without considering the provision of section 2(18) of the Act and section

BANCTEC TPS INDIA P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT CIR 15, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Banctec Tps India Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-15, T-341, Tower 3, 4Th Floor Room No.574, 5Th Floor, International Infotech Park Aayakar Bhavan, Vashi Railway Station M.K.Road, Complex, Vashi Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No. Aaact8971E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

depreciation of INR 18,11.68.666 pursuant to the provisions of section 79 of the Act: 2.1 On the facts and circumstances

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

depreciation has been allowed in the first year itself and which is deemed as short term capital gain under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ace Builders (P.) Limited(281 ITR 210) even though the said decision was rendered in the context of eligibility of deduction

ITO, WARD-3(3), THANE vs. M/S. SATYA SAI G AGROILS P. LTD., THANE

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Section 79 of the Act did not apply to the carry forward of the current year business loss of INR 5,57,05,749/- and unabsorbed depreciation

ACIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAJMUDRA REAL ESTAE, P.LTD, MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or development rebate is ‘incurred’ in view of the language of section 32/33.Depreciation/Development rebate is 4 2788/M/15 Rajmudra Real Estate(10-11) allowed, if the conditions of the relevant sections are satisfied.Therefore, by the use of the words ‘loss incurred’ and the reference to the chapter in which section 79

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

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

section 32 of the IT Act. 3. Ground No. 3 3. Ground No. 3 – Depreciation on purchase of software Depreciation on purchase of software 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABEINSA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1183/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Dy. Commissioner Of Abeinsa Business Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(1), Development Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 540-A, A.J. House, Marol Vs. Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Maroshi Road, Marol, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Andhri (E), Mumbai-400 059 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagca6110N अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Anadi Varma, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Deshpande, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08-05-2019

depreciation allowance is concerned, the provision of section 79 cannot apply to unabsorbed depreciation allowance.” 3 3. We have heard

HIRANANDANI HEALTHCARE P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

section 79 of the Act was made and all carry forward losses were disallowed. 3 Hiranandani Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3. In response to the said show-cause, the Assessee could not file any satisfactory reply or submission, therefore, the brought forward losses adjusted against the income of Rs. 37,09,306/- of the Assessee were disallowed

JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LTD (SUCCESSOR OF M/S. ASIAN COLOUR COATED ISPAT LTD),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

depreciation pertaining to 2016-17, however, in doing so, the CPC passed order without allowing carry-forward of business loss amounting to Rs. 39,26,81,14,808/- pertaining to AY 2016-17, 3 I.T.A. No. 3407/Mum/2025 2017-18 and 2018-19 stating that, the return of income for the captioned years was not furnished before the due date. Aggrieved

M/S. INDIA LAND AND PROPERTIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 5193/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2015-16) M/S India Land & Properties The Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Central Circle Plot No. 14, 3 Rd Main Road, 6(4), Room No. 1925, 19 Th Ambattur Industrial Estate, फनाभ/ Floor, Air India Building, Ambattur, Chennai, 600058 Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaaci9546A अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Chetan Karia, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2021

depreciation whichever is less as per the books of accounts and not the loss as per the Act. He argued that when there is no mentioned in the provision of Section 115JB of the Act that Section 79

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

section 43(1) of the Act. The balance amount of the slump sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 439,07,65,750/-, was treated as attributable to land. 15. The details are tabulated below: Particulars WDV on date of Rate Depreciation WDV after transfer (Rs.) (Rs.) depreciation (Rs.) Building 31,25,79

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

section 43(1) of the Act. The balance amount of the slump sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 439,07,65,750/-, was treated as attributable to land. 15. The details are tabulated below: Particulars WDV on date of Rate Depreciation WDV after transfer (Rs.) (Rs.) depreciation (Rs.) Building 31,25,79

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

79 (Mad), in the context of Section 50 of the Act, which was to the effect that Section 50 will apply only to cases where the depreciation

VODAFONE IDEA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -5, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

section 263 of the Act as depreciation claim has been allowed without making enquiry and relied upon the case cited as Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 109 taxman 66 (SC). 11. First of all, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee has taken us to the page 76 of the paper book wherein detail qua claim of depreciation

MUMBAI NASIK EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT (C) 4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 263 of the Act is bad in law, and ought to be quashed. Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Pr. CIT has erred in initiating the revisionary proceedings without appreciating that the ld. AO had allowed the depreciation claimed by the appellant of Ps. 1,82,79

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

section 143(3) of the 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made t 10/03/2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. o additions. Firstly, addition was made made made disallowing disallowing disallowing depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to ₹3,38,42,112/- claimed on intangible assets claimed on intangible assets in the form of form of ‘business right’ and ‘goodwill