CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.

383 ITR 217Supreme Court of India2016#450 most cited

What is CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. authority for?

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

203

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. · Section 80IB · Section 80IC · subsidy · excise duty refund · revenue receipt · business income · depreciation · P&L account

Also reported as

67 Taxmann.com 158

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 80IBSection 2(24)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 1961Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)section 115jasection 80hhsection 80hsection 80hhcsection 28(iv)section 80ibsection 115jb(2)section 80icsection 80iasection 80ideduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.

ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi vs. Uflex Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 2198/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…thing has been brought on record by the Ld. CIT-DR to interfere Uflex Ltd. Vs ACIT & ACIT vs. Uflex Ltd. 15 with the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217(SC). Hence, we have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 33. In its appeal for AY 2012-13 the Revenue has taken Ground No. 3 relating to export incentive receipt of Rs. 66,883/-which has been held by the Ld. CIT(A) as part of sale proceeds and hence an allowable deduct…

ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi vs. Uflex Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 2197/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…thing has been brought on record by the Ld. CIT-DR to interfere Uflex Ltd. Vs ACIT & ACIT vs. Uflex Ltd. 15 with the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217(SC). Hence, we have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 33. In its appeal for AY 2012-13 the Revenue has taken Ground No. 3 relating to export incentive receipt of Rs. 66,883/-which has been held by the Ld. CIT(A) as part of sale proceeds and hence an allowable deduct…

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 1572/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…thing has been brought on record by the Ld. CIT-DR to interfere Uflex Ltd. Vs ACIT & ACIT vs. Uflex Ltd. 15 with the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217(SC). Hence, we have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 33. In its appeal for AY 2012-13 the Revenue has taken Ground No. 3 relating to export incentive receipt of Rs. 66,883/-which has been held by the Ld. CIT(A) as part of sale proceeds and hence an allowable deduct…

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 1571/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…thing has been brought on record by the Ld. CIT-DR to interfere Uflex Ltd. Vs ACIT & ACIT vs. Uflex Ltd. 15 with the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217(SC). Hence, we have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 33. In its appeal for AY 2012-13 the Revenue has taken Ground No. 3 relating to export incentive receipt of Rs. 66,883/-which has been held by the Ld. CIT(A) as part of sale proceeds and hence an allowable deduct…

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 1570/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…thing has been brought on record by the Ld. CIT-DR to interfere Uflex Ltd. Vs ACIT & ACIT vs. Uflex Ltd. 15 with the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217(SC). Hence, we have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 33. In its appeal for AY 2012-13 the Revenue has taken Ground No. 3 relating to export incentive receipt of Rs. 66,883/-which has been held by the Ld. CIT(A) as part of sale proceeds and hence an allowable deduct…

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 1569/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

…thing has been brought on record by the Ld. CIT-DR to interfere Uflex Ltd. Vs ACIT & ACIT vs. Uflex Ltd. 15 with the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217(SC). Hence, we have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 33. In its appeal for AY 2012-13 the Revenue has taken Ground No. 3 relating to export incentive receipt of Rs. 66,883/-which has been held by the Ld. CIT(A) as part of sale proceeds and hence an allowable deduct…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

…T, (2011) 333 ITR 335 (J & K) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on appeal therefrom reported as CIT v. Shree Balaji Alloys, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 239 (SC) as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Limited, (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC).The order dated August 25, 2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 was followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment year 2010- 11 decided by an order dated September 13, 2017 (Page 190 at pages 193-194 of the Paper Book – paragraphs 68 at 73-74). A still later decision in the assessee’s favour is that of the Hon’ble Calcutta…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…and therefore would qualify for the deduction w/s 801A of IT Act, 1961. 6.5 I find that the issue had been settled by Hon'ble Apex court and High Courts in favour of the appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd reported in 383 ITR 217 had decided that the subsidies reimbursed to the assessee for element of cost relating to manufacture or sale of their products bear a direct nexus between profits of assessee's business and reimbursement of such subsidies and therefore such subsidies are eligible for deduction u/s 8018 rws. 801C of IT. Act, 1961. The relevant finding of Hon'ble…

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…and therefore would qualify for the deduction w/s 801A of IT Act, 1961. 6.5 I find that the issue had been settled by Hon'ble Apex court and High Courts in favour of the appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd reported in 383 ITR 217 had decided that the subsidies reimbursed to the assessee for element of cost relating to manufacture or sale of their products bear a direct nexus between profits of assessee's business and reimbursement of such subsidies and therefore such subsidies are eligible for deduction u/s 8018 rws. 801C of IT. Act, 1961. The relevant finding of Hon'ble…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 573/MUM/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e was decided in favour of the assessee after following the decision in favour of the assessee after following the decision of the co-ordinate bench on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) (383 ITR 217) SC. Following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act in respect duty draw back and interest income. P a g e | 16 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj Auto Limited Additional Ground No. 4 – If duty Drawback and interest is excluded…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3055/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e was decided in favour of the assessee after following the decision in favour of the assessee after following the decision of the co-ordinate bench on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) (383 ITR 217) SC. Following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act in respect duty draw back and interest income. P a g e | 16 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj Auto Limited Additional Ground No. 4 – If duty Drawback and interest is excluded…

The DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2655/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e was decided in favour of the assessee after following the decision in favour of the assessee after following the decision of the co-ordinate bench on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) (383 ITR 217) SC. Following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act in respect duty draw back and interest income. P a g e | 16 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj Auto Limited Additional Ground No. 4 – If duty Drawback and interest is excluded…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e was decided in favour of the assessee after following the decision in favour of the assessee after following the decision of the co-ordinate bench on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) (383 ITR 217) SC. Following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act in respect duty draw back and interest income. P a g e | 16 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj Auto Limited Additional Ground No. 4 – If duty Drawback and interest is excluded…

The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1933/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e was decided in favour of the assessee after following the decision in favour of the assessee after following the decision of the co-ordinate bench on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) (383 ITR 217) SC. Following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act in respect duty draw back and interest income. P a g e | 16 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj Auto Limited Additional Ground No. 4 – If duty Drawback and interest is excluded…

Candor Kolkata One Hi- Tech Structures Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6937/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatcandor Kolkata One Hi-Tech Structures Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 5 (2), (Formerly Known As Unitech Hi-Tech Structures New Delhi. P. Ltd. & Earlier Known As Unitech Hi-Tech Structures Ltd.), 1102, Tower – B, 11Th Floor, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 (Maharashtra).

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Candor Kolkata One Hi-Tech Structures Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 5 (2), (formerly known as Unitech Hi-Tech Structures New Delhi. P. Ltd. And earlier known as Unitech Hi-Tech Structures Ltd.), 1102, Tower – B, 11th Floor, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 (Maharashtra). (PAN : AAACU7918A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate Ms. Saloni Shital, AR REVENUE BY : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date…

Aqatic Frozen Foods Global Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatanam vs. ACIT, Circle1(1), Visakhapatanam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 100/VIZ/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…It is also found that the assessee has received an income of Rs. 4,38,01,028/- from Duty Draw Back and Rs. 5,39,69,173/- from MEIS. This Bench by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble 5 Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Limited (2016) 383 ITR 217 has allowed deduction of export incentives namely Duty Drawback scheme, Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) inI.T.A. No.158/Viz/2022 (AY: 2018-19)in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle- 1,Visakhapatnam vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited. However, subsequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Saraf E…

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4695/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ..... Respondent Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Respondent (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B Patel / Shri KiritFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…Therefore, the aforesaid items of income which represent recoupment of costs ought not to be excluded while computing the profit of the eligible undertaking. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions: (a) CIT vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd (383 ITR 217)(SC) (b) ACIT vs. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. (92 ITD 11) (Cuttack) (c) ACIT vs Vinati Organics Ltd (36 CCH 123) (Mum) (d) ACIT vs Prakash L Shah (115 ITD 167) (Mum SB) (Now known as Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) 38. Further, it is submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has in principle agreed that the items at para 32 above should be considered as part of th…

The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj International P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 8952/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 40Section 80I

…al has held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA in respect of both the income referred above. In this regard, the co-ordinate bench has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd (2016)(383 ITR 217)(SC). Following the order passed by the co-ordinate bench, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of duty draw and interest income. 8. Ground no.6 urged by the assessee relates to the issue whether the wealth tax payment is eligible for deduction while computin…

Candor Kolkata One Hi- Tech Structures Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra vs. DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 7762/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7839/Del/2018, A.Y. 2011-12 ITA No. 7470/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No. 2836/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 M/s. Candor Gurgaon Two Vs. CIT, Developers And Projects Pvt. Ltd. Circle-18(1), (formerly known as Unitech Room No. 193, Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building, PAN : AAACU8404B New Delhi Candor Gurgaon Two Developers ACIT, And Projects Pvt. Ltd. Circle-5(2), (formerly known as Unitech New Delhi Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd.) PAN : AAA…

Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Project Ltd. (Formerly Knwon As Unitech Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 7839/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7839/Del/2018, A.Y. 2011-12 ITA No. 7470/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No. 2836/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 M/s. Candor Gurgaon Two Vs. CIT, Developers And Projects Pvt. Ltd. Circle-18(1), (formerly known as Unitech Room No. 193, Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building, PAN : AAACU8404B New Delhi Candor Gurgaon Two Developers ACIT, And Projects Pvt. Ltd. Circle-5(2), (formerly known as Unitech New Delhi Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd.) PAN : AAA…