62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd.

324 ITR 29High Court2010#3230 most cited
37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 32Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 41(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 72asection 43(6)section 80jsection 72section 135mat creditwritten down valuededuction under section 80iastrategic investmentsection 80hhunabsorbed depreciationamalgamation

Judgments citing 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd.

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 574/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala and Mahima GoudFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)Section 80I

…the assessee subsidiary and correspondingly included the same in the assessee’s WDV of the fixed assets. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd. (324 ITR 29), which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of Revenue’s SLP on 28.07.2008, wherein the Hon’ble Court has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (187 ITR 1). The Ld. AR also invited our…

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

…ived from the subsidiary and correspondingly included the same in the assessee's WDV of the fixed assets. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd. (324 ITR 29), which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of Revenue's SLP on 28.07.2008, wherein the Hon'ble Court has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (187 ITR 1). The Ld. AR also invited our…

TECH MAHINDRA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 1(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2463/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. CIT, Range 2(2) (Earlier known as Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACM 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. CIT-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier known as Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1st Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 PAN/GIR No. AAACM 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee by : Shri Viral Shah Respondent by :…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2282/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. CIT, Range 2(2) (Earlier known as Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACM 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. CIT-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier known as Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1st Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 PAN/GIR No. AAACM 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee by : Shri Viral Shah Respondent by :…

ACC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(4), MUMBAI-400005 vs. M/S. ACC LIMITED, MUMBAI-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 1171/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…the Courts prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA of the IT Act. We observe that the Courts have taken a consistent view that the deduction was allowable for the residual period to the successor company. 57. In CIT vs. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…the Courts prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA of the IT Act. We observe that the Courts have taken a consistent view that the deduction was allowable for the residual period to the successor company. 57. In CIT vs. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3178/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…. ACC Limited business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3139/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…. ACC Limited business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

ACC LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL CIT ,(LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6638/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3246/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

ACC LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT ,RG. 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3203/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated into one and the amalgamated company continued to carry on the bu…

ACC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6082/MUM/2014[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

…litting up of business - Whether on facts, assessee had fulfilled conditions mentioned in section 10A(2) and, thus, its claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] 62. Further, in CIT v. Silical Metallurgic Ltd (324 ITR 29), the facts before Hon’ble Madras High Court were as follows: there were three units at different places being new industrial undertakings eligible for deduction under the applicable provisions. They belonged to 26 ITA NO.4669& 4556/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2007-08) M/s. ACC Limited different companies assessed separately. The companies were amalgamated int…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2