Doshi v. CIT (O

Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 804 & 805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2011-12)

…s Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 721 (Ker.), the Hon'ble J ft K. High Court in CIT vs Agya Wanti 248 ITR 641 (J & K). It is noted that the Department has relied upon the decision in K. K. Doshi (245 ITR 849)(Bom.), which has been reversed by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2008) 297 ITR 38(SC), wherein, the main point was that as to whether the amendment to section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, w.e.f. 1st April, 1992, is prospective in nature or is retrospective. This Court in the case of P.R. Prabhakar vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 27 : (2006) 284 ITR 548 (SC), relying upon Circula…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4442/Mum/2010 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit - Range 2(2) Room No. 577, 5Th Floor L&T House, N.M. Marg Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aaacl0140P Mumbai-400020 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4599/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 वष" Dcit - Range 2(2) M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Mumbai-400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Mukund Chate Assessee By: Shri J.D. Mistry सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.26.03.20130Of The Cit(A)-5,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Manufacturing Of Heavy Machinery & Cement, Etc., Filed It Return Of Income On,27.11.1998,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.20 Crores.The Ao Complet -Ed The Assessment,On 28.02.2001, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,09,15,37,490/-.

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Shri Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA No./4442/Mum/2010 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. DCIT - Range 2(2) Room No. 577, 5th Floor L&T House, N.M. Marg Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road PAN: AAACL014…

Addl CIT Cen Cir IX, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

…the assessee explained that for Assessment year 2000-01 & 2001-02, identical claim was accepted by the Assessing Officer and explanation-5 to section 32 was w.e.f. Assessment year 2002-03. Reliance was placed upon the decision in K. K. Doshi Vs CIT (O2008) 297 ITR 38(SC). 8.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee did not claim depreciation while computing business profit for Assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02, which position had become final as the ld. Assessing Officer did not allow depreciation in those years. However, the Expla…

ACIT Cen Cir Cir-34, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

…the assessee explained that for Assessment year 2000-01 & 2001-02, identical claim was accepted by the Assessing Officer and explanation-5 to section 32 was w.e.f. Assessment year 2002-03. Reliance was placed upon the decision in K. K. Doshi Vs CIT (O2008) 297 ITR 38(SC). 8.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee did not claim depreciation while computing business profit for Assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02, which position had become final as the ld. Assessing Officer did not allow depreciation in those years. However, the Expla…

DCIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

…the assessee explained that for Assessment year 2000-01 & 2001-02, identical claim was accepted by the Assessing Officer and explanation-5 to section 32 was w.e.f. Assessment year 2002-03. Reliance was placed upon the decision in K. K. Doshi Vs CIT (O2008) 297 ITR 38(SC). 8.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee did not claim depreciation while computing business profit for Assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02, which position had become final as the ld. Assessing Officer did not allow depreciation in those years. However, the Expla…