M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

7A, 2B and 12 to section 43(1). ITA No.2470/Mum/2017. 6) Hence, if the A.O. disputes the actual cost being the revalued amount of the Asset then the only option available with the A.O. is to dispute the value by invoking Explanation 3 to Section 43(1). 7)) Thus, as per 5th Proviso AO can allow depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 32(1)(ii)\nof the Act, it cannot be disputed that the consideration paid also covered the\nconsideration for these contracts, and the said consideration was over and\nabove the net asset value of other recognised tangible and intangible assets.\nWe find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in\nThermo Fisher Scientific India

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

depreciation disallowance is correct. Issue No. 7 – Disallowance of Deduction claimed u/s 35AD (i) Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO on the alleged reason that as per Section 35AD(7A

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MUMBAI.50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

depreciation disallowance is correct. Issue No. 7 – Disallowance of Deduction claimed u/s 35AD (i) Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO on the alleged reason that as per Section 35AD(7A

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL)--50, MUMAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

depreciation disallowance is correct. Issue No. 7 – Disallowance of Deduction claimed u/s 35AD (i) Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO on the alleged reason that as per Section 35AD(7A

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

depreciation disallowance is correct. Issue No. 7 – Disallowance of Deduction claimed u/s 35AD (i) Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO on the alleged reason that as per Section 35AD(7A

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 43(1) of the Act, to hold that assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the relevant explanation is reproduced as under: explanation is reproduced as under: “Explanation 7. “Explanation 7.—Where, in a scheme

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 43(1) of the Act, to hold that assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the relevant explanation is reproduced as under: explanation is reproduced as under: “Explanation 7. “Explanation 7.—Where, in a scheme

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 43(1) of the Act, to hold that assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the relevant explanation is reproduced as under: explanation is reproduced as under: “Explanation 7. “Explanation 7.—Where, in a scheme

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 43(1) of the Act, to hold that assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the relevant explanation is reproduced as under: explanation is reproduced as under: “Explanation 7. “Explanation 7.—Where, in a scheme

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNWON AS SMARTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD ) ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MUMBAI-50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section (7B) to\nprovide that if such asset is used for any purpose other\nthan the specified business, the total amount of deduction\nso claimed and allowed in any previous year in respect of\nsuch asset, as reduced by the amount of depreciation\nallowable in accordance with the provisions of section 32\nas if no deduction had been allowed under

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, SPL. RG.32, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(OSD) RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, of section 2(7)(a) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the above mentioned assessment order, assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, may which has been passed without authority of law, may be treated