CIT v. Paul Brothers

Raj International Ltd., Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalraj International Ltd., 701, River Residency, B/H Anjan Salakha Apartment, Athwalines, Surat-395007 Pan: Aaacr5092G ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-4(3) (1), Room No. 649, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ..... Respondent Dy.Cit, Circle-4(3) (1), Room No. 649, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ..... Appellant Vs. Raj International Ltd., A-1803, Samarpan, Kanakia Spaces, Opp. Magathane, Tel. Exchange Bus Stop, Western Express Highway, Borivali, Mumbai- 400101. Pan: Aaacr5092G ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Dharan Gandhi, Ar Respondent/Revenue By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra, Cit-Dr

…overned by the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the Rules made there under. We have gone through various decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd., CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (216 ITR 548) and M/s. Direct Information Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO dated 29.09.2011 in W.P. No. 1479/2011 relied upon by assessee wherein their Lordships has held that once deduction under section 10AA of the Act is allowed in the first year and continued to an assessee then in subsequent years it cannot be withdrawn, unless to the facts of the case have changed. We…

JCIT(OSD)-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jyothy Laboratories Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

…ment years, therefore the action of the Assessing Officer to deny the claim in the instant assessment year is untenable. In support, reliance has also been placed on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom.), which has been subsequently reiterated and applied by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Simple Food Products (P) Ltd. (supra). 9. The learned D.R. has not joined issue with the respondent-assessee on factual matrix, but pointed out that the Assessing Officer has denied the claim in the instant year on a justified basis. The learned D.…

DCIT-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jyothy Laboratories Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

…ment years, therefore the action of the Assessing Officer to deny the claim in the instant assessment year is untenable. In support, reliance has also been placed on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom.), which has been subsequently reiterated and applied by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Simple Food Products (P) Ltd. (supra). 9. The learned D.R. has not joined issue with the respondent-assessee on factual matrix, but pointed out that the Assessing Officer has denied the claim in the instant year on a justified basis. The learned D.…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…t 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) 6. CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 3/217 Taxman 288/355 ITR 14 (Delhi) ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/…

Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us :-

…submitted, assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 80IA should be allowed. In support of his contention, leaned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: – i) Radhaswamy Satsangh v/s CIT, [2992] 193 ITR 221 (SC); and ii) CIT v/s Paul Bros., [2995] 216 ITR 548 (Bom.). 9. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of the assessee as well as GIL incriminating material relating to assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act was found. He submitted, the incriminating material found during the search and seizer operation rev…

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Savita Oil बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-47 Technologies Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7934A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiro Rai Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Following Grounds Raised By The Assessee Is Neither Being Pressed Nor Does They Survive For The Reasons Given Therein As Under: - “(I) Ground.4- Disallowance U/S 14A In View Of Order Giving Effect To Cit(A) Order & Order U/S 154, Not Pressed Qua Balance Disallowance Of Rs.7,74,722/- (Ii) Ground No. 5 Disallowance As Capital Expenditure Since Depreciation (Ground No.6) Allowed, Not Pressed. (Iii) Ground No. 6 – Allowance Of Depreciation In Order U/S 154, Ao Has Allowed Depreciation. Hence, Does Not Survive.

…ed all the aforesaid facts and take the view that the year under appeal (AY. 2008-09) is the 11th year? In this context, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 10 A.Y. 2008-09 Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. in CIT v Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548. The Ld. Counsel brought to our notice the facts in that case wherein the assessee had made claim for deduction u/s 80HH and 80J of the Act which was allowed for AY 1980-81 and this became final. Thereafter, the claim was allowed for the next 2 years, which was later sought to be revised u/s 263 by Ld. PCIT and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court holdi…