ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

depreciation by invoking the erstwhile fifth of proviso to section 32 (1) of the act (now sixth proviso to section 32 (1) of the act) which proviso is not applicable to the facts of the appellant DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35DD OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMALGAMATION EXPENSES: ₹ 290,372/– 6) on the facts and in the circumstances

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

depreciation by invoking the erstwhile fifth of proviso to section 32 (1) of the act (now sixth proviso to section 32 (1) of the act) which proviso is not applicable to the facts of the appellant DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35DD OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMALGAMATION EXPENSES: ₹ 290,372/– 6) on the facts and in the circumstances

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 ()

depreciation of ble assets of Rs.125,05,87,823/- for Rs.31,26,46,956/- on intangi on intangible assets of Rs.125,05,87,823/ entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected

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 ()

depreciation of ble assets of Rs.125,05,87,823/- for Rs.31,26,46,956/- on intangi on intangible assets of Rs.125,05,87,823/ entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected

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 ()

depreciation of ble assets of Rs.125,05,87,823/- for Rs.31,26,46,956/- on intangi on intangible assets of Rs.125,05,87,823/ entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected

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 ()

depreciation of ble assets of Rs.125,05,87,823/- for Rs.31,26,46,956/- on intangi on intangible assets of Rs.125,05,87,823/ entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee entire assessment year. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected

MERCK SPECIALITIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-7(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 43(1) of the Act as done by the Learned AO in the assessment year 2007-08 and disallowing depreciation of Rs. 5,19,87

VIACOM 18, MEDIA PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 32 of the Act, depreciation on goodwill is allowable for and upto AY 2020-21; 6. without prejudice to the above, failed to appreciate that out of total amount of depreciation of Rs.195,32,57,760, only an Amount of Rs.1,87

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

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

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

depreciation etc. He has arrived at a figure of Rs. 11,17,87,315. He has claimed the entire amount as an exemption under section

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

87,578/- was also disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. After some more addition and disallowance, the total income of the assessee was assessed in sum of Rs.7,82,50,992/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the claim of the but the assessee was not satisfied

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

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

depreciation under section 32\nof the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.5,03,462/- made by the AO in the\nhands of the assessee is upheld. As a result, Ground no.1 raised in the\nassessee's appeal is dismissed.\n16. The issue arising in Ground no.2, raised in the assessee's appeal,\npertains to the disallowance of expenditure on account

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32;] 87[(b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32;] 87[(b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32;] 87[(b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHREEVALLABH DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32;] 87[(b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

depreciation considering it it as intangible asset. 10. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, granted partial relief to the assessee and directed the A.O. to disallow only the entrance fees as capital in nature and allow all other expenditures as revenue expenditure. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 11. Having considered the submissions of both sides