WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

disallowed the assessee's claim of additional depreciation on windmill under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act holding

J.N INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

disallowed the assessee's claim of additional depreciation on windmill under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act holding

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)

32(1)(iia) of the 1961 Act P a g e | 13 ITA No.7370/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 TCPL Packaging Ltd. v. DCIT-8(3)(1),Mumbai which stood disallowed in AY 2011-12 on the ground of user of new plant and machinery for a period of less than 180 days keeping in view second proviso to Section

EVEREST INDUSTIRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

section 32(1)(iia) does not provide that the additional depreciation shall be allowed only in the year in which the new plant and machinery has been acquired and installed, i.e., the assessee took the view that the plant and machinery purchased after 31.3.2005 shall be eligible for additional depreciation @ 20% of the actual cost every year. However, the said

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

section 80HHC of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the profit earned by valuing finished goods is notional imaginary profit which could not be taxed. In view of the above, it is argued that appreciation in value of investments cannot be taken into account. The netting off of appreciation against the depreciation within a classification is therefore contrary

ABOTT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 32(1)(iia) 4 : 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 53,32

ABBOTT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 3472/Mum/2013 and ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 32(1)(iia) 4 : 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 53,32

ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act merely provides that further to the normal depreciation at the prescribed rates, an additional depreciation shall be allowed to the assessee at the rate of 20% on new plant and machinery acquired and installed after 31-03-2005. However, the period the period during which such additional depreciation shall be allowed

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S Welspun Corp Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Central Circle-22 Room No.465, 4Th Floor Welspun House 7Th Floor, B-Wing Aaykar Bhawan Kamla Mills Compound M.K.Road Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0744L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit,Central Circle-3(3) Vs. M/S Welspun Corp Ltd. Room No.401, 4Th Floor Welspun House 7Th Floor, B-Wing Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Kamla Mills Compound Mumbai-400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0744L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowing claim of additional depreciation on the cost of Plant &. Machinery of Rs. 1,64,23,35,348/- purchased in the preceding previous year. The addition made lo the income of the Appellant is incorrect and invalid. b) The Ld. CIT(A) Tailed to appreciate that after the amendment of section 32(1)(iia

DCIT CEN CIR 3(3) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. WELSPUN CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S Welspun Corp Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Central Circle-22 Room No.465, 4Th Floor Welspun House 7Th Floor, B-Wing Aaykar Bhawan Kamla Mills Compound M.K.Road Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0744L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit,Central Circle-3(3) Vs. M/S Welspun Corp Ltd. Room No.401, 4Th Floor Welspun House 7Th Floor, B-Wing Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Kamla Mills Compound Mumbai-400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0744L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowing claim of additional depreciation on the cost of Plant &. Machinery of Rs. 1,64,23,35,348/- purchased in the preceding previous year. The addition made lo the income of the Appellant is incorrect and invalid. b) The Ld. CIT(A) Tailed to appreciate that after the amendment of section 32(1)(iia

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

32(1)(iia) of the Act is a beneficial provision and therefore should be interpreted liberally. The AO, vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, did not accept the submissions of the assessee and held that the words used in the section clearly mentioned that plant and machinery should be acquired

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

32(1)(iia) of the Act is a beneficial provision and therefore should be interpreted liberally. The AO, vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, did not accept the submissions of the assessee and held that the words used in the section clearly mentioned that plant and machinery should be acquired

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowing claim of additional depreciation on the cost of Plant & Machinery of 1,64,23,35,348/- and 78,09,11,306/- purchased in the previous years relevant to A.Ys.2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. b) The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that after the amendment of section 32(1)(iia

JT. CIT. CIR.RG.8(2)(OSD), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LOTUS ENERGY (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7530/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Jt. Cit Cir. 8(2), M/S Lotus Energy (India) बनाम/ R. No. 216-A, Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, 214, Laxmi Plaza, M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai -. Andheri (W), Mumbai 53. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcl 0119K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the new plant and machinery are required to be acquired and installed after 31-3-2005 , as in the instant the same was also acquired prior to 31-03- 2005 but installed after 31-3-2005, hence, additional depreciation was not allowable because the conditions stipulated u/s 32(1)(iia

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

iia) any asset, not being an investment or deposit in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, where such asset is not held by the trust or institution, otherwise than in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, after the expiry of one year from

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

iia) any asset, not being an investment or deposit in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, where such asset is not held by the trust or institution, otherwise than in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, after the expiry of one year from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LUBRIZOL INDIA PVT LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd Income-Tax-3(4), Mumbai 9/3, Lubrizol India Private Limited- 5Th Room No.559, Floor, Plant, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate Naka, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Thane- Mumbai-400 020 400 705 Pan: Aaacl0126H Appellant Respondent

disallowance under section 37(1) and claim of deduction under section 80G. Hence, the appeal is allowed.” 8. After considering the arguments presented by both parties and reviewing the documents on record, we observe that Section 32(1)(iia

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THIRVANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

disallowed the claim of depreciation holding that the ownership of the road is with the Government of India, however, the assessee was allowed amortization of cost at Rs. 28,58,11,556/-. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee was allowed depreciation on the basis of decision of Tribunal in case of Mumbai Tribunal in West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. dated