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 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, which reads as under: “Explanation 2.— —Where in any previous year, any block of assets is Where in any previous year, any block of assets is transferred

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

32, clause (ii) of sub-section (3) ITA 7034/Mum/2013 and 12 ITA 7035/Mum/2013 of section 32A. Clause (ii) of subsection (2) of section 33 and sub-section (4) of section 35 of the Act or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub- section (1) of section 36 shall not be applicable in relation to any such allowance or deduction

SUPREME PETROCHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance under section 14A. 4. Each of the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. 5. First, we shall take up the appeal in ITA No.3947/Mum/2012 filed by the assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09. 6. The issue raised by the assessee vide ground of appeal No.1 is against the non-allowance

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

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

2,08,73,89,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowances: (i) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32

ACIT-CIRCLE-5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

32 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. therefore been computed at Rs. Nil in necordance with the formula prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Further, as the actual administrative expenditure was disallowed by the assessee under sub-clause (i), no further disallowance was warranted under sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

32 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. therefore been computed at Rs. Nil in necordance with the formula prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Further, as the actual administrative expenditure was disallowed by the assessee under sub-clause (i), no further disallowance was warranted under sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D. Hence, the aggregate disallowance under Section

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowance of direct expenses as provided under Rule 8D(2)(i) and the interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The dispute is with regard to administrative expenses only as prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(iii). We have noted that the assessee has claimed investment in its group companies for strategic purpose on which no other expenses or administrative expenses

STAINLESS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-4(3), (Now Known As Stainless Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ India Ltd.), M.K. Road, Vs. 226, 3Rd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacs7067A

section 32(2) and same is also allowed to be set off from the long term capital gains. Thus, the impugned grounds (grounds number 1 to 4) are allowed. 3. The next ground pertains to disallowing

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

disallowed under Section 37 of the Act. 15.As pointed out earlier, neither the Revenue, nor the assessee referred to Section 37 of the Act. Thus, the error committed by the Tribunal firstly is in exceeding the scope of the order of remand passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier decision noted above. Secondly, the Tribunal

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. In view of the aforesaid, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 3 & 4 30. Ground No. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue pertains to computation of Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act. 30.1. Identical ground raised

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee at ` 2,82,47,295. 23. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, by acquiring the right to collect annuity, the assessee has acquired a valuable commercial right which is an intangible asset within the 40 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. meaning of section 32

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

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

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

2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

disallowed by the Revenue. The issue of claim of depreciation was ultimately settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the assessee's case reported in 327 ITR 323, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the membership card acquired by the assessee was an intangible asset as per Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee

ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD ( FORMERLY VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

section 2(28C) to mean a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax or an Additional Commissioner of Income-tax under section 117(1). Section 151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Joint Commissioner. The expression has a distinct meaning by virtue of the definition in 'section 2(28C). The Commissioner of Income

SUVINO TELEVIDEO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

section 32(2) as\napplicable for assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000.\"\n\nAs seen above, business loss pertaining to Assessment Years 1995-\n96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 will not be allowed to be carried forward. The\ncarry forward of business loss and depreciation loss will be allowed as\nunder:\n\nAsst. Year Business\nloss\nUnabsorbed\nDepreciation\nTime