SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

50B], section 80-1 A, section 80-1B, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, [section 115JB, [section 115JC] or section 115VW] or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.] The appellant has contended that it had claimed

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

50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the cannot be denied the benefit of higher cost by relying on the sixth cannot be denied the benefit of higher cost by relying on the sixth cannot be denied the benefit of higher cost by relying on the sixth proviso to section 32. proviso to section

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C ) are initiated on this issue. 8.6 Assessee filed objections before the DRP-1, Mumbai, disputing additions on the above issues. The DRP 1, Mumbai, vide order dated 6'" September 2017, passed under section 144C

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 ()

disallowed the claim of the depreciation by holding as under: ciation by holding as under: (i) The goodwill was not purchased by the assessee which is evident not purchased by the assessee which is evident not purchased by the assessee which is evident from the BTA and no payment from the BTA and no payment was made by the assessee

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 ()

disallowed the claim of the depreciation by holding as under: ciation by holding as under: (i) The goodwill was not purchased by the assessee which is evident not purchased by the assessee which is evident not purchased by the assessee which is evident from the BTA and no payment from the BTA and no payment was made by the assessee

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 ()

disallowed the claim of the depreciation by holding as under: ciation by holding as under: (i) The goodwill was not purchased by the assessee which is evident not purchased by the assessee which is evident not purchased by the assessee which is evident from the BTA and no payment from the BTA and no payment was made by the assessee

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 ()

disallowed the claim of the depreciation by holding as under: ciation by holding as under: (i) The goodwill was not purchased by the assessee which is evident not purchased by the assessee which is evident not purchased by the assessee which is evident from the BTA and no payment from the BTA and no payment was made by the assessee

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

1 to section 50B of the Act and also on the relevant provisions of The Companies Act and Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act to submit that the revaluation reserve ought to 26 ITA 1903/Mum/2015 M/s Strides Arcolab Limited be excluded while arriving at the price at which the transaction is to take place and accordingly the same is within

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

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

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of\nthe Act, and the same is deleted. As a result, Ground No. 1 raised in assessee's\nappeal is allowed.\n37.\nGround No. 2, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the applicability\nof the provisions of section 50B

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of\nthe Act, and the same is deleted. As a result, Ground No. 1 raised in assessee's\nappeal is allowed.\n37.\nGround No. 2, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the applicability\nof the provisions of section 50B

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

1 raised by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. In relation to Ground No.2 – Disallowance of interest paid to the Income Tax Department amounting to Rs.95,02,963/-: 47. During the year, the assessee has received interest of Rs. 29,31,73,252/- and has paid interest of Rs. 95,02,963/- to the Income Tax Department. In the return

ORICON ENTERPRISES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

1)(v)of the Act,he held that the assessee had neither actually paid the amount nor had met the conditions stipulated in the said section,that case of the assessee did not fall under section 43B of the Act,that clauses b and f of the section deduction was to be allowed on actual payment.Finally,he upheld the order

SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

50B, section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80JJAA, section 92F, section 115JB, section 115JC and section 115W of the Act are proposed to be amended accordingly. 7 AY 2022-23 Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. Further, the due date for filing return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 is proposed to be amended by:- (A) providing 31st

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed the claim\nof depreciation made by the assessee in respect of manufacturing contracts\nand supply/maintenance contracts and added the same to the total income of\nthe assessee.\n9. The learned DRP, vide its directions issued under section 144C(5) of the\nAct, rejected the objections filed by the assessee on this issue on the basis\nthat the assessee

AADIVASI WELFARE FOUNDATION,JHARKHAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

disallowance of Income is called for on the ground that the form for accumulation has been filed belatedly. 2. The Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee is a Resident Non-Profit Foundation which has been recognized as an institution exclusively existing for the purpose of Nature Conservation in Tribal Dominated regions of India under section

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowed. Accordingly, the action of the\nAO in not entertaining the claim of the assessee was upheld. In conformity,\nthe AO passed the impugned final assessment order dated 09.01.2016 under\nsection 144(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being\naggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n9. During the hearing, the learned Authorised

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowed. Accordingly, the action of the\nAO in not entertaining the claim of the assessee was upheld. In conformity,\nthe AO passed the impugned final assessment order dated 09.01.2016 under\nsection 144(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on this issue. Being\naggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n9.\nDuring the hearing, the learned Authorised

DCIT RG- 12 (1)(4), MUMBAI vs. ARCHROMA INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri C.N. Prasad (Jm)

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 13,54,40,305/- on Customer Distribution Network (CDN) acquired by the appellant from the seller-chariant under the BTA (this ground is without prejudice to ground No. 1 above). Ground No.3 : Cost of acquisition of goodwill not revised upwards for granting tax depreciation (this ground is without prejudice to ground

M/S. LAFFANS PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE- 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance of depreciation and related expenses on motor car, which we shall deal in seriatim. 4. The first Ground raised in appeal which pertains to the manner of computing Long Term Capital Gain in terms of section 50B of the Act. In this context, the relevant facts are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions