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 ()

ii) advance and loans written off amounting to (ii) advance and loans written off amounting to (ii) advance and loans written off amounting to Rs.35,68,793/-. 13. Before the Assessing Officer it was submitted that sum of Before the Assessing Officer it was submitted that sum of Before the Assessing Officer it was submitted that sum of Rs.18

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 ()

ii) advance and loans written off amounting to (ii) advance and loans written off amounting to (ii) advance and loans written off amounting to Rs.35,68,793/-. 13. Before the Assessing Officer it was submitted that sum of Before the Assessing Officer it was submitted that sum of Before the Assessing Officer it was submitted that sum of Rs.18

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ROAD DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD,ORRISSA vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), 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

68,083 /-by treating the road as ‘plant and machinery’. The assessing officer while passing assessment order 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

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

68,083 /-by treating the road as ‘plant and machinery’. The assessing officer while passing assessment order 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

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

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

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

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

NORTH KARNATAKA EXPRESSWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No. 4372 & 4373/Mum/2012 (Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) North Karnataka Expressway Acit – 10(1), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Center, Plot No. C-22; G- M.K. Road, Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400 020 Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400 051 Pan No. Aabcn3062F

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate. 18. In view of our aforesaid conclusion, there is no need to answer the second part of the question framed. This disposes of grounds no.2, 3, 5 and 6.” We find that the aforesaid order of the „Special

SAGAR DAMOH TOLL ROADS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesagar Damoh Toll Vs. Acit, Circle – 8(1)(2) Roads Ltd Room No. 651, 6Th 513A, 5Th Floor, Floor, Aayakar Kohinoor City, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Off Lbs Marg, Mumbai – 400020. Kurla, Mumbai – 400070 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce2160Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. K. Shivaram.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay K. Shrivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Passed 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68,57,6461-). 2.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts and in circumstances of the case in not accepting the contention of the Appellant that Concessionaire I Toll Collection Rights falls within the definition of Intangible Assets as per section 32(1)(ii

DCIT 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATLANTA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

ii) r/w Explanation 32(1), Explanation–3(b) of the Act. 12. Even otherwise also, the assessee’s claim of depreciation could not have been denied in the impugned assessment year. This is for the reason that in assessment year 2008–09, assessee had claimed depreciation on the investment made on BOT facility by treating it as a capital asset

DCIT - 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATLANTA LTD., MUMBAI

68,482, under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of ` 51,49,82,757 under section 115JB of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 25% on Mumbra bypass road called upon the assessee to furnish necessary details relating to its claim and also to explain

DCIT - 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATLANTA INFRA ASSETS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dy. Commisioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Atlanta Infra Assets Limited Tax – 9(1)(2) 101, Shree Amba Shanti Room No.260A, Chambers Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccb7416Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Co No.19/Mum/2018 M/S. Atlanta Infra Assets Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 101, Shree Amba Shanti Chambers Tax – 9(1)(2) Andheri Kurla Road Room No.260A, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaccb7416Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri H.N. Singh Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta Date Of Hearing 13/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2018

68,482, under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 51,49,82,757 under section 115JB of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 25% on Mumbra bypass road called upon the assessee to furnish necessary details relating to its claim and also to explain

ACG ASSOCATION CAPSULES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

32. Ground nos. I & II are on corporate guarantee commission and is identical to ground nos. I & II of ITA No. 2383/Mum/2018 and the observation given in the said appeal applies mutatis mutandis to this ground of appeal also. 33. Ground no. III pertains to the disallowance made u/s. 14A which on identical facts has been decided in ground

DCIT CC- 7(3), MUMBAI vs. ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

32. Ground nos. I & II are on corporate guarantee commission and is identical to ground nos. I & II of ITA No. 2383/Mum/2018 and the observation given in the said appeal applies mutatis mutandis to this ground of appeal also. 33. Ground no. III pertains to the disallowance made u/s. 14A which on identical facts has been decided in ground

DCIT- CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

32. Ground nos. I & II are on corporate guarantee commission and is identical to ground nos. I & II of ITA No. 2383/Mum/2018 and the observation given in the said appeal applies mutatis mutandis to this ground of appeal also. 33. Ground no. III pertains to the disallowance made u/s. 14A which on identical facts has been decided in ground

ACG ASSOCATION CAPSULES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

32. Ground nos. I & II are on corporate guarantee commission and is identical to ground nos. I & II of ITA No. 2383/Mum/2018 and the observation given in the said appeal applies mutatis mutandis to this ground of appeal also. 33. Ground no. III pertains to the disallowance made u/s. 14A which on identical facts has been decided in ground

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

ii. Excess of debit allowed of ₹312,69,37,766/- as the learned Assessing Officer failed to correctly compute the allowability of bad debt written off. According to the learned PCIT, the learned Assessing Officer has allowed the bad debt without considering the provisions of Section 36(1) (vii). iii. Failed to disallow the provision for depreciation on investment

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

ii) Further, on perusal of the bank statement period 21/09/2006 to 30/09/2006, it reveals that on 25/09/2006 the closing bank balance of Rs.51912/- only. ON 29/09/2006, there is a deposits of Rs.23,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- and on the same day the advances given to the assessee company. 5 Navnidhi Steel & Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. (iii) On perusal

KOVALAM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

68,00,283\n14,58,754\n50,000\n1,82,09,037\nTotal\n5,97,51,637\n1,21,12,112\n3,96,500\n6,09,23,249\n6. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had\nallocated the slump sale consideration on the basis of valuation\nreport of M/s BDO & Co., as under:\nAsset\nValue (Rs.)\nValue