CIT v. Tulsyan NEC Ltd.

MILAHA INTEGRATED MARITME AND LOGISTICS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

…ion 199(1) which in our opinion should prevail upon the forms and the conditions provided in the Rules. This proposition has been settled in various judgments, for sake of reference few of them are being referred to, viz.,:- • CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (2011) (330 ITR 226) (SC)…

USV P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-C-5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. USV Private Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 PAN: AAACU1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle- 5(2) v. M/s. USV Private Limited 1908, 19th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 PAN: AAACU1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assess…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/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…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/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…

LATE RUSSI DINSHAW BAHADURJI BY HIS LEGAL HEIR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -19(3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…the forms and the conditions provided in the Rules. This proposition has been 15 Late Russi Dinshaw Bahadurji By his legal heir settled in various judgments, for sake of reference few of them are being referred to, viz.,:-  CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (2011) (330 ITR 226) (SC) "13. Lastly, it is immaterial that the relevant form prescribed under Income-tax Rules, at the relevant time (i.e., before 1-4- 2007), provided for set off of MAT credit balance against the amount of tax plus interest i.e., after the computation of interest under section 234B. This was directly contrary to a plain reading of section 115JAA…

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

…ration. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. counsel placed reliance on the following judgments, wherein it has been held that a Form notified by the Board cannot override the Act or have any effect on the operation of the statute:-  CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (2011) (330 ITR 226) (SC) “13. Lastly, it is immaterial that the relevant form prescribed under Income-tax Rules, at the relevant time (i.e., before 1-4- 2007), provided for set off of MAT credit balance against the amount of tax plus interest i.e., after the computation of interest under section 234B. This was directly contrary to a plain reading of section 115JAA…

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

…ration. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. counsel placed reliance on the following judgments, wherein it has been held that a Form notified by the Board cannot override the Act or have any effect on the operation of the statute:-  CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (2011) (330 ITR 226) (SC) “13. Lastly, it is immaterial that the relevant form prescribed under Income-tax Rules, at the relevant time (i.e., before 1-4- 2007), provided for set off of MAT credit balance against the amount of tax plus interest i.e., after the computation of interest under section 234B. This was directly contrary to a plain reading of section 115JAA…

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

…s, 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 the Act. The Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “42. So, the amendment merely clarifies…

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

…s, 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 section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court ob…

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

…s, 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 section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court ob…

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

…s, 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 section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court ob…

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

…s, 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 section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court ob…

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

…s, 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 section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court ob…

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

…s, 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 section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court ob…

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

…s, 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 the Act. The Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “42. So, the amendment merely clarifies…

THE DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7486/Mum/2007 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Acit-(Ltu)-1 Ambuja Cements Limited बनाम/ World Trade Centre [Earlier Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.] Elegant Business Park Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Vs. Midc Cross Road “B”, Off Andheri-Kurla Road Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-05. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-0569-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7494/Mum/2007 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Ambuja Cements Limited Dcit–Range-3(1) [Earlier Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd] बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Elegant Business Park Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Midc Cross Road “B”, Off Andheri-Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 0569 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.222/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 7494/Mum/2007] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Acit-(Ltu)-1 Ambuja Cements Limited बनाम/ [Earlier Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.] World Trade Centre Elegant Business Park Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Vs. Midc Cross Road “B”, Off Andheri-Kurla Road Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-05. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-0569-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…NTS LIMITED Assessment Year: 2004-05 Tribunal, held that interest was to be charged only after adjustment of tax credit. We find that the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) is in line with following binding judicial pronouncements: - i) CIT V/s Tulsyan NEC Ltd. [2011 330 ITR 226(SC)] ii) CIT V/s Apar Industries Ltd. [(2010)323 ITR 411(Bombay HC)] iii) CIT V/s Shiv Texyarn Ltd. [(2009) 182 Taxman 1(Madras HC)] iv) CIT V/s. Gujarat Mitra (P.) Ltd. [(2013) 214 taxman 35(Gujarat HC)] v) Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. V/s DCIT [(2004) 83 TTJ 427 (Chennai Tribunal)] vi) Phillips India Ltd. V/s. ACIT [(2005) 92 ITD 441 (Chandigarh Tribu…