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 ,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 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

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. 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

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

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. 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

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 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

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

ii)I read with Explanation 1 to section 43(6) of the IT Act of the Act and holding that the cost of goodwill in the hands of of the Act and holding that the cost of goodwill in the hands of of the Act and holding that the cost of goodwill in the hands of Appellant should

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

ii) that while computing the AAA under Rule 6ABA has taken into account even the advances made by certain Urban branches whereas only the advances made by Rural branches is to be considered. State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to merger) 10. The CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of the assessee by accepting the contention

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

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

ii) that while computing the AAA under Rule 6ABA has taken into account even the advances made by certain Urban branches whereas only the advances made by Rural branches is to be considered. State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to merger) 10. The CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of the assessee by accepting the contention

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74 in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74 in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed

ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. MOBIAPPS INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(2)(4), M/S Mobiapps India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.542, 5Th Floor, 7/10, Borawala Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaccm3613L

ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74 in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years; 16 (iii) no deduction shall