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

Acc Limited (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Ltu, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-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)

…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 ( 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

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

…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…

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

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

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

…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…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-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)

…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 ( Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-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)

…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…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…itting 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 (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…itting 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…

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

…has been given effect to, in the computation of income of the amalgamating companies and will not include unabsorbed depreciation. This legal proposition is supported decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Silical Metallurgic Ltd. (2000) 324 ITR 29 Mad HC). Where, the Hon’ble Court held that the statutory provision makes it clear that the WDV of the asset would be the actual cost of the assets of the assessee less depreciation allowed to the company. Any unabsorbed depreciation, which was not set off for carry forward could not be taken into account. A similar view was taken by the Bombay Hi…

Jt. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…he 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- CC- 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…he 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 -CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…he 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 - CC - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…he 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 Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…he 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 Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…he 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 Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…he 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 Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…he 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…