Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

29 SOT 177Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#8555 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. GUJARAT JHM HOTELS LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 27/SRT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Hotel Holiday In, Near Ambica Vs. Surat. Niketan, Athwalines, Surat- 395001. Pan : Aaacg 8562 E Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 02/Srt/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 27/Srt/2017)(Ay: 2010-11) M/S Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd., D.C.I.T. Hotel Holiday In, Near Bharti Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Park, Ambikaniketan, Surat. Athwalines, Surat-395007. Pan : Aaacg 8562 E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 80I

…past, deduction undersection 80IA is to be computed with respect to each of the unit separately. The assessee also relied on the decision of Bangalore Bench in case of Jindal Aluminum Ltd. 54 SOT 283, Mumbai Tribunal in Meera Cotton & Synthetics Mills P Ltd. 29 SOT 177 and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd. 35 DTR 273. 8. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that as per the various decisions relied by the assessee i.e. the Hon'ble High Court and Tribunal have taken a consistent view that as per provisions of Section 80IA, deduction is av…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…11) (ITA No. 2146/Hyd/2017) (Page 19 to 32 of COJ) (Assessee’s own case) c. NSL Renewable Power Private Limited vs. DCIT (AY 2012-13) (ITA No. 988/Hyd/2017) (Page 33 to 42 of COJ) (Assessee’s own case) d. Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2009) 29 SOT 177 (Mum.Trib.) B. Rebuttal to Department’s submissions: As regard the Ld. DR’s submission, we would like to place on record our rebuttals. 1. At the outset, Ld. DR relied on Assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 1024/Hyd/2017) wherein Your Honours have held that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Act, from the in…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 165/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…11) (ITA No. 2146/Hyd/2017) (Page 19 to 32 of COJ) (Assessee’s own case) c. NSL Renewable Power Private Limited vs. DCIT (AY 2012-13) (ITA No. 988/Hyd/2017) (Page 33 to 42 of COJ) (Assessee’s own case) d. Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2009) 29 SOT 177 (Mum.Trib.) B. Rebuttal to Department’s submissions: As regard the Ld. DR’s submission, we would like to place on record our rebuttals. 1. At the outset, Ld. DR relied on Assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 1024/Hyd/2017) wherein Your Honours have held that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Act, from the in…

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2146/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Aman BarasiaFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…tion, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) Punit Construction Co. vs. JCIT (2018) 92 Taxmann.com 28 (Mum.Trib). ii) Jindal Aluminium Ltd vs. ACIT (2012) 26n Taxmann.com 317 (Bang.Trib.) iii) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2009) 29 SOT 177 (Mum.Trib). iv) Sriram Properties (P) LTd vs. ACIT (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 398 (Chennai.Trib). v) CIT vs. Dewan Kraft Systems (P) Ltd (2008) 297 ITR 305 (Del. HC) Page 5 of 14 ITA No 2146 of 2017 NSL Renewable Power P Ltd Hyderabad 5. Therefore, he prayed that the AO has correctly allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in the assessm…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. S.D. CORPORATION P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is rejected

ITA 6395/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit-3(3)(1) M/S S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Admin Office, S.P. Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020 Colaba, Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aadcs4496C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : Shri Dilip Lakhani (Sr. Advisor Of Deloite Haskins & Sell Llp) Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Dilip Lakhani (Sr. Advisor of Deloite Haskins and Sell LLP)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT-3(3)(1) M/s S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 609, 6th Floor, Admin Office, S.P. Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020 Colaba, Mumbai-400005. PAN: AADCS4496C Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR) Respondent by : Shri Dilip Lakhani (Sr. Advisor of Deloite Haskins and Sell LLP) Date of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH,…

ACIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 489/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Purvankara Projects Room No. 906, Vs. Ltd., 130/1, Ulsoor Road, Pratisthabhavan, 10Th Floor, Bangalore-560042 Old Cgo Building Annexe, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacp2550R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit(Cc)-1(2), Room No. M/S Purvankara Projects 906, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Bldg. Vs. Ltd., 130/1, Ulsoor Road, Annex Bldg., M.K. Road, Bangalore-560042 Mumba-400020. Pan No. Aaacp2550R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Wagley, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Awungshi Gimson, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80B(5)Section 80I

…sessee. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) referred to the order of her predecessor for AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12, wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee, following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Meera Cottons & Synthetics Mills Ltd. v. ACIT (29 SOT 177) and Krupa Chatons Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 658/Mum/2012 dated 01.01.2014). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80IB of profits of eligible units only without netting off the same against the losses. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR refers to the order of the Tribunal dated 27.10.2016 in assessee’s own case for…

DY. C.I.T.1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S GODAWARI POWER & ISPAT LTD.,, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 365/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit- 1(2), Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Vs. Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT- 1(2), Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (CG). Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Vs. Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Raipur (CG). PAN : AAACI7189K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.12/RPR/2018 (In ITA No.365/RPR/2014) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., DCIT- 1(2), Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Raipur (CG). Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Vs. Raipur (CG). PAN : AAACI7189K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri P. K.…

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ASST CIT RG 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…Ltd. -368 ITR 733 (Bom); c) Tridoss laboratories Ltd. -328 ITR 448 (Bom); d) Eskay Knit India Ltd. -ITA No.184 of 2007 (Bom); e) Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd -321 ITR 463 (Del); f) Modi Xerox Ltd [2012] -344 ITR 0411; g) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills P Ltd-29 SOT 177(All); h) Jindal Alluminium Ltd [2012] 19 ITR(T) 255 (Bang Trib); i) Nishikant S Shirodkar –ITA No.7626/M/2013 (Mum Trib). 39. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 40. After considering the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, we find that so far a…

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 560/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…Ltd. -368 ITR 733 (Bom); c) Tridoss laboratories Ltd. -328 ITR 448 (Bom); d) Eskay Knit India Ltd. -ITA No.184 of 2007 (Bom); e) Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd -321 ITR 463 (Del); f) Modi Xerox Ltd [2012] -344 ITR 0411; g) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills P Ltd-29 SOT 177(All); h) Jindal Alluminium Ltd [2012] 19 ITR(T) 255 (Bang Trib); i) Nishikant S Shirodkar –ITA No.7626/M/2013 (Mum Trib). 39. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 40. After considering the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, we find that so far a…

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SYNGENTA INDIA LTD, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1926/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…Ltd. -368 ITR 733 (Bom); c) Tridoss laboratories Ltd. -328 ITR 448 (Bom); d) Eskay Knit India Ltd. -ITA No.184 of 2007 (Bom); e) Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd -321 ITR 463 (Del); f) Modi Xerox Ltd [2012] -344 ITR 0411; g) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills P Ltd-29 SOT 177(All); h) Jindal Alluminium Ltd [2012] 19 ITR(T) 255 (Bang Trib); i) Nishikant S Shirodkar –ITA No.7626/M/2013 (Mum Trib). 39. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 40. After considering the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, we find that so far a…

DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1313/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 80I

…500 square feet. He further held that deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act shall be allowed in respect of each of the projects. In this regard he placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Meera Cottons and Synthetics Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 29 SOT 177 5 M/s. Purvankara Projects Ltd. and also Krupa Chatons Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, dated 11.1.2014 (Mumbai ITAT). Aggrieved by the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred these appeals before us. 6. We heard the parties and perused the record. The first issue relates to the allowing deduction u/s 80IB(10…

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 649/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…Ltd. -368 ITR 733 (Bom); c) Tridoss laboratories Ltd. -328 ITR 448 (Bom); d) Eskay Knit India Ltd. -ITA No.184 of 2007 (Bom); e) Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd -321 ITR 463 (Del); f) Modi Xerox Ltd [2012] -344 ITR 0411; g) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills P Ltd-29 SOT 177(All); h) Jindal Alluminium Ltd [2012] 19 ITR(T) 255 (Bang Trib); i) Nishikant S Shirodkar –ITA No.7626/M/2013 (Mum Trib). 39. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 40. After considering the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, we find that so far…

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 8534/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…Ltd. -368 ITR 733 (Bom); c) Tridoss laboratories Ltd. -328 ITR 448 (Bom); d) Eskay Knit India Ltd. -ITA No.184 of 2007 (Bom); e) Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd -321 ITR 463 (Del); f) Modi Xerox Ltd [2012] -344 ITR 0411; g) Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills P Ltd-29 SOT 177(All); h) Jindal Alluminium Ltd [2012] 19 ITR(T) 255 (Bang Trib); i) Nishikant S Shirodkar –ITA No.7626/M/2013 (Mum Trib). 39. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 40. After considering the relevant finding given in the impugned orders as well as various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, we find that so far…