CIT v. Metal & Chromium Plater (P.) Ltd.

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBI, MUMBAI vs. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

…ional High Court decisions [i.e. in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.]” That approach, however, is contrary to the stand taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Metal and Chromium Plater Pvt Ltd [(2019) 415 ITR 123 (Mad)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed that “The Bombay High Court in the case of Veekaylal Investments (supra) considers the inclusion of capital gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub-sections (4) o…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

…al High Court decisions [i.e. in the case\nof CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.]” That approach,\nhowever, is contrary to the stand taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of\nCIT Vs Metal and Chromium Plater Pvt Ltd [(2019) 415 ITR 123 (Mad)] wherein Their\nLordships have, inter alia, observed that “The Bombay High Court in the case of\nVeekaylal Investments (supra) considers the inclusion of capital gain for the purposes of\nassessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section\n115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub-sections (…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALOK INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

…ional High Court decisions [i.e. in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.]” That approach, however, is contrary to the stand taken by Hon‟ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Metal and Chromium Plater Pvt Ltd [(2019) 415 ITR 123 (Mad)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed that “The Bombay High Court in the case of Veekaylal Investments (supra) considers the inclusion of capital gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub-sections (4) o…

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-3(1), Mumbai M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.

…unsel has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: “(a) Ankit Metal & Power Ltd (2019) 109 taxmann.com 93 (Calcutta High Court) (b) Shree Cement Limited (ITA No. 86 of 2014) (Rajasthan High Court) (c) Metal and Chromium Plater (P) Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 123 (Madras High Court) (d) Batliboi Limited (ITA No. 5428/Mum/2015) (Mumbai Tribunal) (e) Deegee Orchards Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 4613/Mum/2016) (Mumbai Tribunal) In the light of the above facts and finding we find the decision of ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the claim of the assesse in respect of amount diverted to the statutory reserve for construction…

BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-3(1), Mumbai M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.

…unsel has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: “(a) Ankit Metal & Power Ltd (2019) 109 taxmann.com 93 (Calcutta High Court) (b) Shree Cement Limited (ITA No. 86 of 2014) (Rajasthan High Court) (c) Metal and Chromium Plater (P) Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 123 (Madras High Court) (d) Batliboi Limited (ITA No. 5428/Mum/2015) (Mumbai Tribunal) (e) Deegee Orchards Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 4613/Mum/2016) (Mumbai Tribunal) In the light of the above facts and finding we find the decision of ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the claim of the assesse in respect of amount diverted to the statutory reserve for construction…

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…f the Act, cannot be subjected to tax u/s 115JB also. In support of this contention, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the following decisions:- (a) PCIT vs. Ankit Metal and Power Ltd (2019)(416 ITR 591)(Cal) (b) CIT vs. Metal & Chromium Plater (P) Ltd (2019)(415 ITR 123)(Mad). The Ld A.R further submitted that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has held in the assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 that the Notional 22 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sales tax incentive (subsidy) though credited to Profit and Loss account, is not liable to tax u/s 115JB of the Act, as the same is a cap…

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…f the Act, cannot be subjected to tax u/s 115JB also. In support of this contention, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the following decisions:- (a) PCIT vs. Ankit Metal and Power Ltd (2019)(416 ITR 591)(Cal) (b) CIT vs. Metal & Chromium Plater (P) Ltd (2019)(415 ITR 123)(Mad). The Ld A.R further submitted that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has held in the assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 that the Notional 22 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sales tax incentive (subsidy) though credited to Profit and Loss account, is not liable to tax u/s 115JB of the Act, as the same is a cap…

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…f the Act, cannot be subjected to tax u/s 115JB also. In support of this contention, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the following decisions:- (a) PCIT vs. Ankit Metal and Power Ltd (2019)(416 ITR 591)(Cal) (b) CIT vs. Metal & Chromium Plater (P) Ltd (2019)(415 ITR 123)(Mad). The Ld A.R further submitted that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has held in the assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 that the Notional 22 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sales tax incentive (subsidy) though credited to Profit and Loss account, is not liable to tax u/s 115JB of the Act, as the same is a cap…

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…f the Act, cannot be subjected to tax u/s 115JB also. In support of this contention, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the following decisions:- (a) PCIT vs. Ankit Metal and Power Ltd (2019)(416 ITR 591)(Cal) (b) CIT vs. Metal & Chromium Plater (P) Ltd (2019)(415 ITR 123)(Mad). The Ld A.R further submitted that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has held in the assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 that the Notional 22 Reliance Industries Ltd. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sales tax incentive (subsidy) though credited to Profit and Loss account, is not liable to tax u/s 115JB of the Act, as the same is a cap…

ADDL CIT 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-3(1)(1) Vs. M/S Bajaj Hindustan Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Sugar Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, ( Ea R L I E R K N O W N A S M / S B A J A J H I N D U S T A N L T D ) Bajaj Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Jamanalal Bajaj, Marg- Mumbai – 400 020 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb4351J Appellant .. Respondent M/S Bajaj Hindustan Vs. Acit-3(1)(1) Sugar Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, ( Ea R L I E R K N O W N A S M / S B A J A J H I N D U S T A N L T D ) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Jamanalal Bajaj, Marg- Mumbai – 400 020 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb4351J Appellant .. Respondent

…unsel has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: “(a) Ankit Metal & Power Ltd (2019) 109 taxmann.com 93 (Calcutta High Court) (b) Shree Cement Limited (ITA No. 86 of 2014) (Rajasthan High Court) (c) Metal and Chromium Plater (P) Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 123 (Madras High Court) (d) Batliboi Limited (ITA No. 5428/Mum/2015) (Mumbai Tribunal) (e) Deegee Orchards Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 4613/Mum/2016) (Mumbai Tribunal) In the light of the above facts and finding we find the decision of ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the claim of the assesse in respect of amount diverted to the statutory reserve for construction o…

BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-3(1)(1) Vs. M/S Bajaj Hindustan Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Sugar Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, ( Ea R L I E R K N O W N A S M / S B A J A J H I N D U S T A N L T D ) Bajaj Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Jamanalal Bajaj, Marg- Mumbai – 400 020 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb4351J Appellant .. Respondent M/S Bajaj Hindustan Vs. Acit-3(1)(1) Sugar Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, ( Ea R L I E R K N O W N A S M / S B A J A J H I N D U S T A N L T D ) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, M.K. Road, Jamanalal Bajaj, Marg- Mumbai – 400 020 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb4351J Appellant .. Respondent

…unsel has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: “(a) Ankit Metal & Power Ltd (2019) 109 taxmann.com 93 (Calcutta High Court) (b) Shree Cement Limited (ITA No. 86 of 2014) (Rajasthan High Court) (c) Metal and Chromium Plater (P) Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 123 (Madras High Court) (d) Batliboi Limited (ITA No. 5428/Mum/2015) (Mumbai Tribunal) (e) Deegee Orchards Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 4613/Mum/2016) (Mumbai Tribunal) In the light of the above facts and finding we find the decision of ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the claim of the assesse in respect of amount diverted to the statutory reserve for construction o…

ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHIMA STOCKS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the extent it is against the assessee are hereby quashed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhacit – 2(2)(1) Vs. M/S Mahima Stocks Room No. 545, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakarbhavan, 1,Gaureshapartments, M.K.Road, Old Police Line, Mumbai – 400020. Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400069. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm2983K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Mahita Nair.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vimal Punmiya.Ar Date Of Hearing 10.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangaluru)(2016) (76 taxmann.com360) 3. M/s Neha Home Builders Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai).(ITA.No.2964/M/2016) 4. ITO Vs. Frigsales (India) Ltd (2005) 4SOT 376 (Mum) 5. CIT Vs. Chennai V. Metal & Chromiun Plater (P.) Ltd. (Madras) (415 ITR 123) 8. We find CIT(A) has dealt on the provisions of the Act, facts and judicial decisions. We considered it appropriate to refer to the observations of the CIT(A) in granting the relief held at page 6 of the order as under: The above matter was taken up by the jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of the M.S. R. & Sons Investment Ltd. V…

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

…ional High Court decisions [i.e. in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.]” That approach, however, is contrary to the stand taken by Hon‟ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Metal and Chromium Plater Pvt Ltd [(2019) 415 ITR 123 (Mad)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed that “The Bombay High Court in the case of Veekaylal Investments (supra) considers the inclusion of capital gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub-sections (4) o…

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

…ional High Court decisions [i.e. in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.]” That approach, however, is contrary to the stand taken by Hon‟ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Metal and Chromium Plater Pvt Ltd [(2019) 415 ITR 123 (Mad)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed that “The Bombay High Court in the case of Veekaylal Investments (supra) considers the inclusion of capital gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub-sections (4) o…

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

…ional High Court decisions [i.e. in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd., 249 ITR 597 (Bom.]” That approach, however, is contrary to the stand taken by Hon‟ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Metal and Chromium Plater Pvt Ltd [(2019) 415 ITR 123 (Mad)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed that “The Bombay High Court in the case of Veekaylal Investments (supra) considers the inclusion of capital gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub-sections (4) o…

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

…vour of the assessee must be adopted in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192). It has been further submitted that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Metal and Chromium Plater (P) Ltd. (415 ITR 123) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sureshchandra kantilal Acharya [2018 (11) TMI 599] the principle given by these cases should prevail over the judgement in case of assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. Learned counsel further submitted citation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Lal lohia & Mahabir Prasad Khemka (1974 CTR 167) for th…