CIT v. Paul Brothers

216 ITR 548High Court1995#594 most cited

What is CIT v. Paul Brothers authority for?

Once a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Paul Brothers · Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548 · section 80IA · section 80IB · initial assessment year · deduction subsequent years · estoppel · denial of deduction · withdrawal of relief · recurring deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 80IBSection 14ASection 131Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(4)section 80ib(2)section 2(29ba)section 11binitial assessment yearsection 80ia(4)(i)section 36(l)(iii)section 36(l)section 80jdeduction under section 80iasection 80ibsection 80ia(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Paul Brothers

Jayanti S Kundhadiya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 80

…endered agreement, concurrently held that the assessee has entered into a development of infrastructure facility agreement and not the works contract.” 23. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that unless deduction allowed for a particular assessment year on the same ground were withdrawn, they could not be denied for the subsequent years. He also relied on the decision of the Mumbai ‘G’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SMC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.…

Jayanti S Kundhadiya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 80

…endered agreement, concurrently held that the assessee has entered into a development of infrastructure facility agreement and not the works contract.” 23. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that unless deduction allowed for a particular assessment year on the same ground were withdrawn, they could not be denied for the subsequent years. He also relied on the decision of the Mumbai ‘G’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SMC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 80

…endered agreement, concurrently held that the assessee has entered into a development of infrastructure facility agreement and not the works contract.” 23. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that unless deduction allowed for a particular assessment year on the same ground were withdrawn, they could not be denied for the subsequent years. He also relied on the decision of the Mumbai ‘G’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SMC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.…

Asst.Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3885/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Asst. Commissioner of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2, 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3884/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Asst. Commissioner of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2, 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3883/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Asst. Commissioner of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2, 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Asst. Commissioner of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2, 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3881/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Asst. Commissioner of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2, 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3880/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Asst. Commissioner of…

Asst.Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3879/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Asst. Commissioner of…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3863/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Asst. Commissioner of…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

…0–11. The said verification included examination of the facts and materials on record, including the tax audit report in Form No. 56F. 7.21 The assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Paul Brothers [(1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom)], wherein it was unequivocally held that once the claim for deduction under section 80-IA/80-IB has been allowed in the initial year, and such relief has not been withdrawn, the deduction for subsequent years cannot be denied on the same grounds. The Hon'ble Court emphasized that in the absence of any action to withdraw the relief granted f…

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ocean Sparkle Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1017/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1017/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Vs. Ocean Sparkle Ltd Circle 5 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco2519H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Saurabh Soparkar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 80I

…ITA No 1017 of 2024 Ocean Sparkle Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1017/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) ACIT Vs. Ocean Sparkle Ltd Circle 5 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAACO2519H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Advocate Saurabh Soparkar राज" व "ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vi…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2838/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Industrial Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Development Corporation, (Exemptions), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, 400 093 Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan : Aaacm3560C Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)Section 263

…preme Court. Permitting him/her to take such a view would introduce judicial indiscipline, which is not called for even in such cases. It would lead to a chaotic situation. This decision was followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) to hold that where ITO's order is passed on the basis of a binding decision, revisional power under section 263 cannot be exercised to undo the said order. 11 MIDC 9. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and filed a written submission. The relevant part of the written submission is reproduced as below:- “4.2 Coming to the Hon'ble Tribunal's order d…

Reliance Power Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2367/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Gunjan Kakkad, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ding a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. With this modification, the order of the PCIT is upheld. 9. Before closing, the reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers [1995] 216 ITR 548 (Bombay), is not found to be relevant on facts of the case in hand. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 23rd August, 2024 at Mumbai. (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 23/08/2024 *SC SrPs SC SrPs SC SrPs SC SrPs I.T.A. No. 2367/Mum/2024 5 आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत /Copy of t…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai City

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2032/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 90/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri . East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 91/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Respective Cross Objections (‘Co’) Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 31-03-2023 For Ay 2008-09 & Ay 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (DR)
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…be denied in subsequent years. 1. RadhaSoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 340/210 Taxman 229 (Mag.)/349 ITR 309 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Paul Brothers. [1995] 79 Taxman 378/216 ITR 548 (Bom.) 4. CIT v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 219 /[2015] 232 Taxman 406 (Bombay) 5. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. [2010] 8 taxmann.com 129/327 ITR 570 (Delhi) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd 6. CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 3/217 Taxman 288/355 ITR 14 (Delhi)…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2031/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 90/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri . East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 91/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Respective Cross Objections (‘Co’) Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 31-03-2023 For Ay 2008-09 & Ay 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (DR)
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…be denied in subsequent years. 1. RadhaSoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.com 340/210 Taxman 229 (Mag.)/349 ITR 309 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Paul Brothers. [1995] 79 Taxman 378/216 ITR 548 (Bom.) 4. CIT v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 219 /[2015] 232 Taxman 406 (Bombay) 5. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. [2010] 8 taxmann.com 129/327 ITR 570 (Delhi) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd 6. CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 3/217 Taxman 288/355 ITR 14 (Delhi)…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

…withdrawal of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act in the 6th year of its claim of the assessee. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers reported in 216 ITR 548 (Bom). 8.6. It is a fact that the steam generated from the power plant is transferred for usage in manufacturing soda ash and salt. For this transfer of usage of steam from power plant to the chemical plant, the assessee had reflected sale of steam in the profit and loss account of power plant and claimed deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. The steam…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…n Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 377 ITR 272 (Bom). No action against said order could legitimately be initiated u/s 263 as the said order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - CIT VS. Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548 (Bom.). Refer Annexure 8. vi. The assessment order also followed principle laid down in several ITAT judgments that the total income of a co-operative credit society dealing exclusively with its members is fully deductible u/s 80P(2)(a)(1) of the Act. This further supports the contention that the order was neither Erroneous nor Prejudicial to the…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…n Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 377 ITR 272 (Bom). No action against said order could legitimately be initiated u/s 263 as the said order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - CIT VS. Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548 (Bom.). Refer Annexure 8. vi. The assessment order also followed principle laid down in several ITAT judgments that the total income of a co-operative credit society dealing exclusively with its members is fully deductible u/s 80P(2)(a)(1) of the Act. This further supports the contention that the order was neither Erroneous nor Prejudicial to the…