CIT v. Amco Power Systems Ltd.

M/S. BIRLA EDUTECH LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…. (ITA. No.3435/Mum/2010). Further, the Ld. AR submitted that in any case, the control of the assessee company was always with the Yash Birla group, so question of section 79 of the Act does not arise and cited the case laws (i) Amco Power Systems Ltd. (2015) 379 ITR 375 (Kar) (ii) Select Holiday Resorts (P.) Ltd. (2013) 217 Taxman 110 (Delhi) and (iii) Wadhwa & Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (ITA. No.967/Mum/2016 dated 14.02.2018). And as per Ld. AR, in any case, (alternative argument), section 79 bars carry forward and set off of “any loss incurred in any year prior to the previous year”. Consequently, section 7…

M/S. VEENA PATIL HOSPITALITY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-8, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Veena Patil Vs. Pcit-8 Hospitality Pvt Ltd Room No. 611, 701To 705, Neelkanth 6Th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Park, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Vidhyavihar Mumbai – 400 020 West, Mumbai - 400086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv4768R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Achal Sharma.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…, 170 ITD 744, ( T AHD) 4. Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E), 2020, 188 ITD 151, (TMUM) 5. Sir Dorbji Tata Trus Vs. DCIT(E), 2020, 188 ITD 38, (T Mum) 6. JRD Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E), 2020, 122 taxmann.com 275, (TMum) 7. CIT Vs. Amco Power Systems Ltd, 2015, 379 ITR 375 (Kar) 8 Wadhwa & Associates Realtors (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT, 2018, 92 taxmann.com 37 (TMum) 9. Lodha Land Development ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2819/M/2012, 7. We find voluminous information was submitted by the assessee, in the assesseement proceedings and at page I of the Assesseement order, the A.O. has referred to notice u/sec142(1) of the Act issu…

WHEELABRATOR ALLOY CASTINGS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - CENTRAL- 2, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Had Validly Assumed Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

…eelabrator Alloy Castings Ltd., business loss for the previous years shall be available if 51% of the control and voting power of the company remains unchanged. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court reported in 379 ITR 375 in the case of CIT vs Amco Power Systems Ltd., wherein it was held that the expression “not less than 51% of voting power” used in Section 79 of the Act indicates that in order to invoke provisions of the said section, only voting power is relevant and not shareholding pattern. It was pointed out that change in shareholding pattern of the company…

M/S. BECHTEL FRANCE SAS ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Bechtel France Sas Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Vs. Tax (International Taxation), Llp, 28Th Floor, Tower 3, Indiabulls Range 1(2)(2), Room No. 1811, Finance Centre, Senapati Bapat 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Marg, Elphinstone (West) Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 013 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No. Aaacb2195A (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Jha, D.R Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M:

…carry forward and set-off of business losses would not come into play in the case before us. Our aforesaid conviction is as per the mandate of the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT, Bangalore Vs. Amco Power Systems Ltd. (2015) 379 ITR 375 (Kar). In the said case, the Hon‟ble High Court finding favour with the claim of the assessee that the shareholding pattern is distinct from the voting power of the company, observed, that though the shareholding of the holding company was reduced to 6% during the year in question, however, by virtue of being the holding company and, considering…

DY. CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TRIL ROADS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), Tril Roads Private Limited, Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Elphinstone Building, 2Nd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, 10, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaccn 6123 G Appellant Respondent

…. I agree with the view that transfer on account of merger is akin to transfer on account of death of Shareholder. Therefore, I am of the view that provisions of of section 79 would not apply in the present case. Similarly, in CIT vs AMCO Power Systems Ltd. (379 ITR 375) (Kar.) the High Court has relied on the concept of "voting power" which is provided for in Section 79, referred to the fact that the intention is to deny benefit of set off to a new owner who may misuse the losses available in a company, and may purchase the company only for availment of the said losses. However, the provisions of Section 79 sho…

BANCTEC TPS INDIA P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT CIR 15, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Banctec Tps India Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-15, T-341, Tower 3, 4Th Floor Room No.574, 5Th Floor, International Infotech Park Aayakar Bhavan, Vashi Railway Station M.K.Road, Complex, Vashi Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No. Aaact8971E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…TPS India Private Limited 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 10. We also find that on merits, the assessee’s case is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. AMCO Power Systems Ltd., reported in 379 ITR 375 wherein the relevant operative portion are as under:- “17. The fact that ABL is the holding Company of APIL, which is the wholly owned subsidiary of ABL and that Board of Directors of APIL are controlled by ABL, is not disputed. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee that the shareholding pattern is distinct from voting…

WADHWA & ASSOCIATES REALTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Wadhwa & Associates Asst. Commissioner Of Income Realtors Private Limited Tax 9(3) 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Mumbai. Plot C-59, G Block, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 Pan:Aaacw5273G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate & Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Patankar Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018 O R D E R

…which loss is incurred and the last day of the previous year in which the loss so incurred is to be set off. The learned AR submitted that issue and controversy is directly covered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of AMCO Power Systems Ltd. [2015] 379 ITR 375 wherein the similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and has held that the purpose of section 79 of the Act would be that benefit of carry forward and set off of business loss of previous years of company should not be misused by any new owner who may purchase the shares of the company, only to get the benefit of set-off…