CIT v. Jindal Exports Ltd.

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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)

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of t…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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)

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of t…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs.1412, 1413 2461 & 2462/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) UltraTech Cement Ltd., v. DCIT, Central Circle -1(4) Ahura Centre, “B" Wing Pratishtha Bhavan, Old. C.G.O. Bldg., 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 2871, 2872 &2873/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) DCIT, Central Circle -1(4) v. UltraTech Cement Lt…

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

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

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

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

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

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

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

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

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

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

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

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs.1412, 1413 2461 & 2462/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) UltraTech Cement Ltd., v. DCIT, Central Circle -1(4) Ahura Centre, “B" Wing Pratishtha Bhavan, Old. C.G.O. Bldg., 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 2871, 2872 &2873/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) DCIT, Central Circle -1(4) v. UltraTech Cement Lt…

RASHTRIYA CHEMICAL FETILIZERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

…he Act,that SAT was paid u/s.140, that interests u/s.215, 220 and 234B was payable after taking into consideration the payment under those sections, that there was no category called ad hoc payment under the Act. He referred to the case of Jindal Exports Ltd. 314 ITR 137) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and held that interest was payable to the assessee under chapter XIX of the Act and u/s.234D on the funds, that none of the sections refer to any category called otherwise, that words otherwise mentioned in section 234B (2) is in Contradistinction to payments made u/s.140A, that the payments made on 30/04/0998 and…

ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainacit, Central Circle-38 M/S. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd. (Formerly United Phosphorous Ltd.) Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor Vs. Uniphos Hosue, 11Th Road Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road C.D. Marg, Khar (W), Mumbai Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacu3440P Appellant Respondent

…115JA specifically provides that no interest shall be payable on tax credit allowed u/s. 115JA(1). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in following the decision of the CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137 (Del) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had rightly held that credit u/s. 115JAA should be given before charging of interest 234B & 234C, for which specific provisions is in these sections to allow credit of same before charging interest u/s. 234B & 234C, and no such provision is prescribed for allowed credit. 4. Ground No. 1 4.1 In this groun…