SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciable asset u/s 50 even though deem to be capital gain arising from transfer of a short term capital asset, that fiction has to be confined only to section 50 and it cannot convert 'short term capital asset' into a 'long term capital asset' and vice versa for the other purpose of the Act, either for set off against

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. KHANNA HOTEL P.LTD, MUMBAI

depreciation, the held that contention of the assessee with regard to section 71 permitting setting off of business loss against STCG and LTCG was incorrect, that provisions of section 71 (3)did not allow set off of capital loss against business income,that the intention of the legislature was that assessee should not get benefit of paying taxes at lower

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

92,32,199/- be held to be allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of\nthe Act and the id. AO be accordingly directed to allow the same\"\n3. The additional grounds raised are pure legal issue, which does not require\ninvestigation of new facts. Hence, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble\nApex Court in the case of National

VAN OORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri Rajesh Kumar

92 of the Act would, thus, be relevant to compute business profits as provided for in sections 28 to 43C; that as the assessee has opted to be governed by TTS, the provisions of section 115VA shall override sections 28 to 43C, and hence, the income has to be calculated with reference to the registered tonnage of the ships

NGA HR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

section 92(3) of the Act. The assessee in this regard had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case Merecer Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. [2024] 161 taxmann.com 420 (Del.). The assessee also raised objections stating that the TPO has accepted the overall transaction including the management services and in that case

TOPSGRUP ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

depreciation, etc. 7.1.3 Further, a plain reading of section 92(1) of the Act which specifies that ‘any income arising

NGA HR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT (JAO - DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed infructuous

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

92(3) of the Act. c. not appreciating the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Mercer Consulting India Private Limited vs DCIT (ITA No 1085/Del/2016). The same has also been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court (ITA 217/2017). d. not taking cognizance of the benefits derived by the Assessee from

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

92,48.395 10 Total value of Goodwill eligible for depreciation for AY 85,13,06,766 Total value of Goodwill eligible for depreciation for AY Total value of Goodwill eligible for depreciation for AY 2009-10 Less: Depreciation @ 25% for the AY under (21,28,26,691) Less: Depreciation @ 25% for the AY under Less: Depreciation

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

depreciable assets in the books of M/s Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. as on the date of transfer, amounting to Rs. 60,92,34,250/-, as the actual cost of such assets in the hands of the assessee under section

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

depreciable assets in the books of M/s Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. as on the date of transfer, amounting to Rs. 60,92,34,250/-, as the actual cost of such assets in the hands of the assessee under section

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision where a company can claim the expenditure is section 37 of the ActHence, it is pertinent to test the conditions mentioned in section 37 in order to conclude whether the expenditure is allowable? Section 37 of the Act Page

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

depreciation on assets amounting to Rs. 6,92,248/-. 3 I.T.A. No. 6023/Mum/2025 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is in respect of the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had invested in equity- oriented

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

92(1) very clearly brings out that income arising from an International Transaction is a condition precedent for application of Chapter X [Para 24]. The word income for the purpose has a well understood meaning as defined in section 2(24). This even when the definition in section 2(24) is an inclusive definition. It cannot be disputed that income

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

92(1) very clearly brings out that income arising from an International Transaction is a condition precedent for application of Chapter X [Para 24]. The word income for the purpose has a well understood meaning as defined in section 2(24). This even when the definition in section 2(24) is an inclusive definition. It cannot be disputed that income

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

92(1) very clearly brings out that income arising from an International Transaction is a condition precedent for application of Chapter X [Para 24]. The word income for the purpose has a well understood meaning as defined in section 2(24). This even when the definition in section 2(24) is an inclusive definition. It cannot be disputed that income

TCPL PACKAGING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharm/S Tcpl Packaging Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Empire Mills Complex, Tax- 8(3)(1) 414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai V. Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaact1406E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act. The assessee also made claim before learned CIT(A) for allowing additional depreciation of Rs.29,92

IDEA CELLULAR LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Idea Cellular Limited Principal Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Income Tax-14, Century Mills Compound, 469, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacb2100P

depreciation of Rs. 1,27,32,60,976/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 7,94,64,25,489/-income under section 115JB of the Act and claiming TDS credit of Rs. 1,56,89,92

L'OREAL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

92 B runs counter to legal position explained in CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (supra) which required a TPO "to examine the 'international transaction' as he actually finds the same." 62. In the present case, the mere fact that B&L, USA through B&L, South Asia, Inc holds 99.9% of the share of the Assessee will not ipso facto