60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd.

349 ITR 309High Court2012#1488 most cited

What is 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. authority for?

A deduction or benefit, particularly under profit-linked incentive sections like 10A or 80IA, allowed in an earlier assessment year should not be denied in subsequent years unless there is a change in law or fresh material justifying a different view.

76

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. · 349 ITR 309 · section 10A · section 80IA · section 80IE · deduction eligibility · consistency in assessment · benefit allowed in earlier year · not denied in subsequent years · RadhaSoami Satsang · profit-linked deduction

Also reported as

210 Taxmann 229

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 80lasection 80ib(4)section 80ia(5)section 80lsection 80ia(4)(i)section 80ia(8)initial assessment yearresulting companydeduction under section 80iasection 80ia(4)infrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80ia

Judgments citing 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd.

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associates Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…ort of the proposition that benefit allowed in earlier year cannot be denied in subsequent years. 1. RadhaSoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 340/210 Taxman 229 (Mag.)/349 ITR 309 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Paul Brothers. [1995] 79 Taxman 378/216 ITR 548 (Bom.) 4. CIT v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 219 /[2015] 232 Taxman 406 (Bombay) 5. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. [2010] 8 taxmann.com 129/327 ITR 570 (Delhi) 6. CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 3/217 Taxman 288/355 ITR 80 ITA NO.…

Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…ort of the proposition that benefit allowed in earlier year cannot be denied in subsequent years. 1. RadhaSoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 340/210 Taxman 229 (Mag.)/349 ITR 309 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Paul Brothers. [1995] 79 Taxman 378/216 ITR 548 (Bom.) 4. CIT v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 219 /[2015] 232 Taxman 406 (Bombay) 5. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. [2010] 8 taxmann.com 129/327 ITR 570 (Delhi) 6. CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 3/217 Taxman 288/355 ITR 80 ITA NO.…

Tangar Exports LLP, Ranipet vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore / ACIT, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 666/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 666/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tangar Exports Llp, Adit, No. 3 (Old No. 2A/4), Railway V. Cpc, Bengaluru, Station Road, Acit, Vellore. Ranipet – 632 401. [Pan: Aaift-3781-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. A. Mahesh, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234CSection 80J

…exemption for a specified number of years is granted on satisfaction of conditions in the 1st year - then exemption CANNOT be denied for subsequent years without withdrawing the exemption for 1st year, as held in: CIT vs Western outdoor interactive pvt ltd - 349 ITR 309 BOM CIT vs Arts & crafts exports 246 ctr 463 (Born) CIT vs Macbrout engineering pvt ltd 232 Taxman 406(Bom) CIT vs Tata communications internet services ltd 204 Taxman 606 (Del) - SLP dismissed 282 Taxman 462 (SC) CIT vs Paul bros 216 ITR 548 (Born) Direct information (p) ltd vs ITO 203 Taxman 70 (Born) 3.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowin…

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

…T [2011] 334 ITR 157 (Karnataka) 1.4 CIT v. Nippon Electronics (India) P. Ltd. reported in [1990] 181 ITR 518 (Karnataka) 1.5 If deduction is allowed in 1st year, it cannot be disallowed in subsequent years 1.6 CIT v Western Outdoor Interactive P. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 309 (Bom) 1.7 Shasum Chemicals & Drugs Ltd v CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 293 (SC) 1.8 Circular No 1 of 2013 – SOW prevails over MSA in determining the eligibility of deduction u/s 10A, 10AA CIT v Cotton Naturals (I) (P) Ltd [2015] 55 Transfer pricing adjustment in respect taxmann.com 523 (Delhi) 6 to 9 of interest receivable from Infosys CIT(A) order f…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 1 of 99 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA No.2384 and 3475/Mum/2019 and 1241/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Ambuja Cement Limited .…………………………Appellant (formerly known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) Elegant Business Park, MIDC Cross Road B, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 059 [PAN: AAACG0569P] Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai ……………...………

DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Joy Syndicate & Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 102/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani ( C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14ASection 801Section 80I

…me Court: Sr. No. Case law 1. Shasun Chemecals & Drugs Ltd. vs. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 1 (SC) High Court: Case law Sr. No. HC Rajasthan CIT vs Malborough Polychem (P.) Ltd. [2009] 309 1 ITR 43 (Raj) Cit vs Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Bombay 2 Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 309 (bom) Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Gujrat Industries Ltd vs CIT [1980] 123 ITR 669 (Guj.) 3. ITAT: Sr. Name of Case LAW No. Bench Delhi Resistoflex Dynamics (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [2014] 1 159 TTJ 423 Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. vs Delhi 2. ITO [2010] 4 ITR(T) 249 7. It is submitted that no reassessment proceedings have been initiated…

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

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

ITA 867/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Savita Oil बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-47 Technologies Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7934A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiro Rai Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Following Grounds Raised By The Assessee Is Neither Being Pressed Nor Does They Survive For The Reasons Given Therein As Under: - “(I) Ground.4- Disallowance U/S 14A In View Of Order Giving Effect To Cit(A) Order & Order U/S 154, Not Pressed Qua Balance Disallowance Of Rs.7,74,722/- (Ii) Ground No. 5 Disallowance As Capital Expenditure Since Depreciation (Ground No.6) Allowed, Not Pressed. (Iii) Ground No. 6 – Allowance Of Depreciation In Order U/S 154, Ao Has Allowed Depreciation. Hence, Does Not Survive.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 158BSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income tax Officer could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent years.” 11. According to the Ld. Counsel, the same view has been reiterated in CIT v Western Outdoor Interactive P Ltd [349 ITR 309] (Bom), and in CIT v Arts and Crafts Exports 246 CTR 463(Bom). Further, reliance was placed upon the principle of consistency. In this regard, it was submitted that having taken a consistent view right from AY 1999- 2000 and onwards as has been brought out above, the present AO could not have turned around and say that AY 1998-99 is the first yea…

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…ITA No.147/Bang/2020 M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Syngene International Limited Plot No.2&3, Bommasandra Industrial Area IV Phase, JCIT Special Range 6 Jigani Link Road Vs. Bangalore Bommasandra Bangalore 560 099. PAN NO : AABCS9936M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR Date of Hearing : 19.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2022 O R D E R…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5318/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

…ncements in support of the proposition that benefit allowed in earlier year cannot be denied in subsequent years. 1. RadhaSoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1992]193 ITR 321 (SC)/[1991] 100 CTR 267 (SC) 2 CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. [349 ITR 309] [BOMBAY] 3 CIT v. Paul Brothers. [216 ITR 548] [BOMBAY] 4. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 219 (Bombay)/[2015] 232 Taxman 406 (Bombay) 5. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. [327 ITR 570] [DELHI] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013]355 ITR 14 (Delhi)/[2013] 260 CTR 25…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4835/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2010-11
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

…ncements in support of the proposition that benefit allowed in earlier year cannot be denied in subsequent years. 1. RadhaSoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1992]193 ITR 321 (SC)/[1991] 100 CTR 267 (SC) 2 CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. [349 ITR 309] [BOMBAY] 3 CIT v. Paul Brothers. [216 ITR 548] [BOMBAY] 4. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 219 (Bombay)/[2015] 232 Taxman 406 (Bombay) 5. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. [327 ITR 570] [DELHI] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013]355 ITR 14 (Delhi)/[2013] 260 CTR 25…

M/S. Gangagen Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…submitted that the Ld. Principal CIT was not justified in citing this reason in the year under consideration. 7. We find merit in the said contentions of the Ld. A.R. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 309) has held that whether a benefit of deduction is available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions and under the provision of Act, then without withdrawing or setting aside the relief granted for the first assessment year in which claim was made and accepted, the AO cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent assessme…

M/S Gangagen Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…submitted that the Ld. Principal CIT was not justified in citing this reason in the year under consideration. 7. We find merit in the said contentions of the Ld. A.R. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 309) has held that whether a benefit of deduction is available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions and under the provision of Act, then without withdrawing or setting aside the relief granted for the first assessment year in which claim was made and accepted, the AO cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent assessme…

Bangalore Raju Mudaliar Mohan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 10(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandar, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 10BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…ge of opinion without relying on any new material to establish a statement of income. He placed reliance on following positions in support of his contention: Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd reported 349 ITR 309 Decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of H Nippon Electronics (India).Pvt.Ltd reported in 181 ITR 518 Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd vs. CIT reported in (1980) 123 ITR 669 Page 8 of 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Bang/2020 10. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that, the issue of app…

Bangalore Raju Mudaliar Mohan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 10(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandar, AdvocateFor Respondent: (DR)
Section 10BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…ge of opinion without relying on any new material to establish a statement of income. He placed reliance on following positions in support of his contention: Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd reported 349 ITR 309 Decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of H Nippon Electronics (India).Pvt.Ltd reported in 181 ITR 518 Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd vs. CIT reported in (1980) 123 ITR 669 Page 8 of 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Bang/2020 10. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that, the issue of app…

ACIT Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Farah Khan, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4428/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4428/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-Circle-16(1), Ms. Farah Khan R. No. 439, 4Th Floor बिाम/ A-3501/3601 Oberoi Sky Heights Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Lokhandwala Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aadpk-0664-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Dr. Shanteshwar Swami, Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Chetan Karia, Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 29/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 29/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Shanteshwar Swami, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…1 Ms. Farah Khan Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एफ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय जस्टिस श्री पी. पी. भट्ट, अध्यक्ष एवं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य BEFORE JUSTICE SHRI P. P. BHATT, PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4428/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) ACIT-Circle-16(1), Ms. Farah Khan R. No. 439, 4th floor बिाम/ A-3501/3601 Oberoi Sky Heights Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Lokhandwala Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053 स्…

Antony Waste Handling Cell P.Ltd, Thane vs. Jt CIT RG 1, Thane

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 5566/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 143(3)Section 8Section 80Section 80I

…s it is stated by the Ld. counsel that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has pointed out any change in facts in the present years as compared to earlier years. Relying on the decision by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Western Outer Interactive Pvt. Ltd., 349 ITR 309, Simple Products Food Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 84 taxmann.com, 239 and CIT v. Paul Brothers, 216 ITR 548, it is argued ITA Nos. 2056/Mum/2015 & Ors 9 M/s Antony Waste Handling Cell that once a deduction has been allowed to an assessee in the initial assessment years, the deduction cannot be disallowed in the subsequent years unless the deduction is so…

Antony Waste Handling Cell P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 143(3)Section 8Section 80Section 80I

…s it is stated by the Ld. counsel that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has pointed out any change in facts in the present years as compared to earlier years. Relying on the decision by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Western Outer Interactive Pvt. Ltd., 349 ITR 309, Simple Products Food Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 84 taxmann.com, 239 and CIT v. Paul Brothers, 216 ITR 548, it is argued ITA Nos. 2056/Mum/2015 & Ors 9 M/s Antony Waste Handling Cell that once a deduction has been allowed to an assessee in the initial assessment years, the deduction cannot be disallowed in the subsequent years unless the deduction is so…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Konkan Polymers & Additives P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 9172/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. R. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2005-06 DCIT 9(2), M/s Konkan Polymers and Additives Aayakar Bhavan, R. No. 218, 2nd Vs. P. Ltd., floor, M.K. Road, 10/301, Pawan Baug, Chincholi Mumbai-400020. Cross Road, S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-64 PAN No. AABCK6738K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer 9(2)-2, M/s Konkan Polymers and Aayakar Bhavan, R. No. 225, Vs. Additives P. Ltd., 2ndflr. M.K. Road, 10/301, Pawan Baug, Chincholi Mum…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Konkan Polymers & Additives P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4176/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2020AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. R. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2005-06 DCIT 9(2), M/s Konkan Polymers and Additives Aayakar Bhavan, R. No. 218, 2nd Vs. P. Ltd., floor, M.K. Road, 10/301, Pawan Baug, Chincholi Mumbai-400020. Cross Road, S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-64 PAN No. AABCK6738K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer 9(2)-2, M/s Konkan Polymers and Aayakar Bhavan, R. No. 225, Vs. Additives P. Ltd., 2ndflr. M.K. Road, 10/301, Pawan Baug, Chincholi Mum…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…tra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj)  CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.)  CIT v Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd: 247 ITR 690 (Guj.)CIT v Fateh Granite (P) Ltd.: 314 ITR 32 (Bom.)  CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd: 349 ITR 309  Direct Information Private Ltd. v. ITO: 15 taxmann.com 63 (Bom)  CIT vs. Escorts Ltd : 338 ITR 435 (Del)  CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (No.2) : 355 ITR 14 (Del)  CIT vs. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd.: 251 CTR 290 (Del) 12. In view of the aforementioned, the Ld. AR submitted that extensive processing activities undert…