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 ()

1 to 308. 9. Regarding the first issue of disallowance of Regarding the first issue of disallowance of Regarding the first issue of disallowance of depreciation claimed on intangible claimed on intangible/ goodwill by the Assessing Officer, dwill by the Assessing Officer, the facts in brief are that the assessee entered into a business transfer are that the assessee entered

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 ()

1 to 308. 9. Regarding the first issue of disallowance of Regarding the first issue of disallowance of Regarding the first issue of disallowance of depreciation claimed on intangible claimed on intangible/ goodwill by the Assessing Officer, dwill by the Assessing Officer, the facts in brief are that the assessee entered into a business transfer are that the assessee entered

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 ()

1 to 308. 9. Regarding the first issue of disallowance of Regarding the first issue of disallowance of Regarding the first issue of disallowance of depreciation claimed on intangible claimed on intangible/ goodwill by the Assessing Officer, dwill by the Assessing Officer, the facts in brief are that the assessee entered into a business transfer are that the assessee entered

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 ()

1 to 308. 9. Regarding the first issue of disallowance of Regarding the first issue of disallowance of Regarding the first issue of disallowance of depreciation claimed on intangible claimed on intangible/ goodwill by the Assessing Officer, dwill by the Assessing Officer, the facts in brief are that the assessee entered into a business transfer are that the assessee entered

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

1)G of the Act. Accordingly, the depreciation allowable to the assessee on Goodwill should have been o (zero). assessee on Goodwill should have been o (zero). 5. A homogeneous reading of the provisions of sections 2(1B). 32 A homogeneous reading of the provisions of sections 2(1B). 32 A homogeneous reading of the provisions of sections

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) – Ground No.5 in assessee's appeal 26. For the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs. 43,41,10,331/- based on the following computation: Deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) Amount for AY 2011-12 Profits and Gains of business before

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) – Ground No.5 in assessee's appeal 26. For the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs. 43,41,10,331/- based on the following computation: Deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) Amount for AY 2011-12 Profits and Gains of business before

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act was disallowed by the AO.\n8.\nThe learned CIT(A), vide impugned order

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

disallowing the aforesaid claim of ITA No.2108, 2132/Mum/2018 & CO 110/Mum/2019; A.Y. 2014-15 depreciation by invoking the erstwhile fifth of proviso to section 32 (1

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

disallowing the aforesaid claim of ITA No.2108, 2132/Mum/2018 & CO 110/Mum/2019; A.Y. 2014-15 depreciation by invoking the erstwhile fifth of proviso to section 32 (1

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

disallowing the depreciation.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Explanation 3 to Section

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

section 14A @ 1% 1,45,31,436 1,45,31,436 of investments of investments Add: Direct Expenditure Add: Direct Expenditure 740 Disallowance u/s. 14A Disallowance u/s. 14A 1,45,32

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter, the Ld. Special Bench re-framed the question in consonance with the fact of the case and framed the question as under: - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter, the Ld. Special Bench re-framed the question in consonance with the fact of the case and framed the question as under: - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter, the Ld. Special Bench re-framed the question in consonance with the fact of the case and framed the question as under: - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter, the Ld. Special Bench re-framed the question in consonance with the fact of the case and framed the question as under: - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter, the Ld. Special Bench re-framed the question in consonance with the fact of the case and framed the question as under: - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANDHRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter, the Ld. Special Bench re-framed the question in consonance with the fact of the case and framed the question as under: - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANDRA PRADESH EXPRESSWAY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 32(1(ii)? And, if not, whether the same being Revenue expenditure is liable to be amortized over the period of concession? 10. And thereafter, the Ld. Special Bench re-framed the question in consonance with the fact of the case and framed the question as under: - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case