M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

disallowance of expenses claimed on power line and marine structures. 99. The learned Counsels appearing of the parties agreed before us that the issues are covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years. 100. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Notably, while deciding identical issue in assessee

DCIT CIR - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

disallowance of expenses claimed on power line and marine structures. 99. The learned Counsels appearing of the parties agreed before us that the issues are covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years. 100. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Notably, while deciding identical issue in assessee

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400 051 PAN – AABCR0929A v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–7(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Farookh V. Irani Revenue by : Shri Vinod Modi Date of Hearing – 05.12.2019 Date of Order – 04.03.2020 8 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. O R D E R PER BENCH This bunch consists of seven sets

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

block of asset which is very negligible. There is no capital asset that comes into existence on account of the said repairs and maintenance and hence, the expenditure claimed to be revenue in nature is to be upheld. The AO has not appreciated these facts while making the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, I direct

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

block of asset which is very negligible. There is no capital asset that comes into existence on account of the said repairs and maintenance and hence, the expenditure claimed to be revenue in nature is to be upheld. The AO has not appreciated these facts while making the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, I direct

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

block of asset which is very negligible. There is no capital asset that comes into existence on account of the said repairs and maintenance and hence, the expenditure claimed to be revenue in nature is to be upheld. The AO has not appreciated these facts while making the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, I direct

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

block of asset which is very negligible. There is no capital asset that comes into existence on account of the said repairs and maintenance and hence, the expenditure claimed to be revenue in nature is to be upheld. The AO has not appreciated these facts while making the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, I direct

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

block of asset which is very negligible. There is no capital asset that comes into existence on account of the said repairs and maintenance and hence, the expenditure claimed to be revenue in nature is to be upheld. The AO has not appreciated these facts while making the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, I direct

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

block of asset which is very negligible. There is no capital asset that comes into existence on account of the said repairs and maintenance and hence, the expenditure claimed to be revenue in nature is to be upheld. The AO has not appreciated these facts while making the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, I direct

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

block of asset which is very negligible. There is no capital asset that comes into existence on account of the said repairs and maintenance and hence, the expenditure claimed to be revenue in nature is to be upheld. The AO has not appreciated these facts while making the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, I direct

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

block of asset which is very negligible. There is no capital asset that comes into existence on account of the said repairs and maintenance and hence, the expenditure claimed to be revenue in nature is to be upheld. The AO has not appreciated these facts while making the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, I direct

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

block of asset which is very negligible. There is no capital asset that comes into existence on account of the said repairs and maintenance and hence, the expenditure claimed to be revenue in nature is to be upheld. The AO has not appreciated these facts while making the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, I direct

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

block of asset which is very negligible. There is no capital asset that comes into existence on account of the said repairs and maintenance and hence, the expenditure claimed to be revenue in nature is to be upheld. The AO has not appreciated these facts while making the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, I direct

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Block BKC, Bandra East, Vs. Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. PAN NO. AAGFV 4334 C AAGFV 4334 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by Assessee by : Mr. Snehal Shah Revenue by by : Mr. Prashant Barate, Sr. DR Prashant Barate, Sr. DR Date of Hearing Date of Hearing : 11/11/2024 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 28/11/2024 ORDER Vidhi Enterprises

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Block BKC, Bandra East, Vs. Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400057. PAN NO. AAGFV 4334 C AAGFV 4334 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by Assessee by : Mr. Snehal Shah Revenue by by : Mr. Prashant Barate, Sr. DR Prashant Barate, Sr. DR Date of Hearing Date of Hearing : 11/11/2024 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 28/11/2024 ORDER Vidhi Enterprises

M/S. RODAN MULTI MEDIA LTD vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL,

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi, (Jm) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.500/Mum/2005 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year-1996-97) बनाम/ Radan Multimedia Limited, Asstt. Commissionr Of Income Tax, Sadhana Rayon House, 2Nd Panvel Circle, Panvel, Vs. Trified Tower, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Dr.D N Road, Fort, Opp. Khanda Colony, Mumbai-400001 New Panvel, Dist. Raigad. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Disallowance of depreciation Rs.1,36,11,269/- 2 3. The assessee has also raised following legal issues:- (a) Scope of assessment in the set aside proceedings. (b) Scope of assessment of items assessed in the block

GUJARAT GLASS P. LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS GUJARAT GLASS P. LTD ),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aabcg0093R V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 03.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

disallowed in A.Y 1999- 2000, it has not entered the block. He submitted, A.Y 1999-2000 being the first year of claim of depreciation, if in that assessment

INGRAM MICRO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT OSD II CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

Block, Godrej IT Park, LBS Road, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai - 400079 [PAN: AABCT1296R] …………… Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Respondent ……………. Mumbai - 400021 Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri M.M. Golvala Shri Farquan Ahemad For the Respondent/Department : Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date Conclusion of hearing : 22.02.2023 Pronouncement of order