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

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

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

section 32 of the Act. Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. 20 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. (i) Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 65 (i) Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 65 (i) Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 65 taxmann.com 288 (Delhi) taxmann.com 288 (Delhi) In this decision

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

32. The assessee in the computation of income claimed a deduction of Rs. 59,75,20,000/- on account of unamortized incremental payment to approved gratuity fund and Rs. 46,79,20,000/- towards payment/contribution to approved pension fund. The assessee submitted before the AO that due to the amendment to the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well

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

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

32. The assessee in the computation of income claimed a deduction of Rs. 59,75,20,000/- on account of unamortized incremental payment to approved gratuity fund and Rs. 46,79,20,000/- towards payment/contribution to approved pension fund. The assessee submitted before the AO that due to the amendment to the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well

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

iii)(e) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, it is pertinent to note\nthat these provisions form part of the Chapter dealing with “Capital Gains\"\nand section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer of capital assets,\npursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the purview of section 45 of\nthe Act. Therefore

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

disallowance of depreciation on goodwill are:- i. In paragraph number five of the remand report dated 6/12/2017 submitted by the learned assessing officer wherein it was stated that that there was not sufficient material available on record for the quantification of goodwill. ii. Further proviso 6 to section 32 (1) of the act prohibits the deduction. iii

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

disallowance of depreciation on goodwill are:- i. In paragraph number five of the remand report dated 6/12/2017 submitted by the learned assessing officer wherein it was stated that that there was not sufficient material available on record for the quantification of goodwill. ii. Further proviso 6 to section 32 (1) of the act prohibits the deduction. iii

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

iii)(e) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, it is pertinent to note\nthat these provisions form part of the Chapter dealing with “Capital Gains\"\nand section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer of capital assets,\npursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the purview of section 45 of\nthe Act. Therefore

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 1,45,32,176 1,45,32,176 Less: Suo Moto Disallowance Less: Suo Moto Disallowance (1,45,32,176) (1,45,32,176) Difference Difference - iii

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, 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 () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

disallowed and corresponding adjustment was made in order passed u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. passed u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and claimed that in view of decision

ACIT 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VKT VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

32,74,00,000 1,07,23,58,408 1,07,23,58,408 7. On the contrary, the assessee has reproduced list of the On the contrary, the assessee has reproduced list of the On the contrary, the assessee has reproduced list of the parties to whom funds stood advanced during the year under parties to whom funds stood

ACIT-32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VKT VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

32,74,00,000 1,07,23,58,408 1,07,23,58,408 7. On the contrary, the assessee has reproduced list of the On the contrary, the assessee has reproduced list of the On the contrary, the assessee has reproduced list of the parties to whom funds stood advanced during the year under parties to whom funds stood

ACIT , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE POWER LTD , MUMBAI

1)(iii) of the Act. Following the same principle, no attribution of\ninterest expenses could be made for the purposes of making disallowance under\nsection 37 and section 38 of the Act.\n6.2.3 Further, it is noted that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 37 of\nthe Act which specify that any expenditure (not being expenditure

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

iii) of Rs.12,94,13,414 and reduce the total income accordingly. ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 3 1A. Without prejudice to Ground no. 1 above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, assuming without accepting that the contention of the Appellant Bank is not acceptable, in such case

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

iii) of Rs.12,94,13,414 and reduce the total income accordingly. ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 3 1A. Without prejudice to Ground no. 1 above, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, assuming without accepting that the contention of the Appellant Bank is not acceptable, in such case

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

1,160,35,01,455/- in the normal computation of total income and further same was also added to the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. iii. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets of ₹27,31,73,482/- was allowed instead of depreciation claimed by the assessee of ₹7,74,20,633/-. iv. Disallowance of club