Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

408 ITR 500High Court2018#3730 most cited

What is Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

A tribunal can exercise its discretion to admit an additional ground of appeal, even if raised for the first time, provided it considers the facts and circumstances of the case.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ultratech Cement Ltd v. Addl. CIT · additional ground of appeal · Tribunal discretion · Section 80IA deduction · admission of new grounds · appellate authority powers · income tax appeals

Also reported as

298 CTR 437157 DTR 253

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 44ADSection 139(1)Section 147Section 153ASection 80A(5)Section 80AC

Issues it is cited on

section 57(i)section 2(d)section 80ia(7)section 10basection 46section 46asection 158b(b)deduction under section 80iasection 80a(5)section 36(1)(viia)section 35dsection 153a(1)(a)

Judgments citing Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 – AY : 2012-13 ITA No. 268/Coch/2021 – AY : 2013-14 ITA No. 269/Coch/2021 – AY : 2015-16 ITA No. 270/Coch/2021 – AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 271/Coch/2021 – AY : 2014-15 Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant 602, Shiv Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 [PAN: AACCR7201F] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CA Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement:…

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 – AY : 2012-13 ITA No. 268/Coch/2021 – AY : 2013-14 ITA No. 269/Coch/2021 – AY : 2015-16 ITA No. 270/Coch/2021 – AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 271/Coch/2021 – AY : 2014-15 Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant 602, Shiv Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 [PAN: AACCR7201F] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CA Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement:…

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 – AY : 2012-13 ITA No. 268/Coch/2021 – AY : 2013-14 ITA No. 269/Coch/2021 – AY : 2015-16 ITA No. 270/Coch/2021 – AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 271/Coch/2021 – AY : 2014-15 Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant 602, Shiv Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 [PAN: AACCR7201F] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CA Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement:…

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 – AY : 2012-13 ITA No. 268/Coch/2021 – AY : 2013-14 ITA No. 269/Coch/2021 – AY : 2015-16 ITA No. 270/Coch/2021 – AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 271/Coch/2021 – AY : 2014-15 Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant 602, Shiv Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 [PAN: AACCR7201F] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CA Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement:…

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 – AY : 2012-13 ITA No. 268/Coch/2021 – AY : 2013-14 ITA No. 269/Coch/2021 – AY : 2015-16 ITA No. 270/Coch/2021 – AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 271/Coch/2021 – AY : 2014-15 Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. ........................ Appellant 602, Shiv Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 [PAN: AACCR7201F] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode ........................ Respondent Appellant by: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CA Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.20…

ITO (IT) TDS-2, MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…and DRP, without raising any ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Addl. CIT in passing the assessment order, no such ground can be raised before the Tribunal for the first time. 11. As regards the decision in Ultratech Cements Ltd v/s Addl. CIT, [2018] 408 ITR 500 (Bom.), relied upon by the Revenue, we find that following question of law arose for consideration of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in refusing to admit the additional ground of the appellant of claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act on…

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8707/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…and DRP, without raising any ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Addl. CIT in passing the assessment order, no such ground can be raised before the Tribunal for the first time. 11. As regards the decision in Ultratech Cements Ltd v/s Addl. CIT, [2018] 408 ITR 500 (Bom.), relied upon by the Revenue, we find that following question of law arose for consideration of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in refusing to admit the additional ground of the appellant of claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act on…

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED AND ADITYA BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1235/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Concentrix Services India बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd Room No. 209, Aayakar Vs. (Formerly Known As Minacs Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pvt. Ltd, Minacs Limited Churchgate, Mumbai- & Aditya Birla Minacs 400020. Worldwide Limited) 9Th Floor, Symphony It Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1567A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken Shah Revenue By: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 30.01.2015 Passed By The Dcit- 10(2)(2), Mumbai For Ay. 2010-11, Pursuant To Direction Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (Hereinafter “The Ld. Drp”) Dated 27.10.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Brought To Our Notice That This Appeal Of The Assessee Company For The Relevant Year I.E. Ay. 2010-11 Was Partly Allowed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.06.2023. & Thereafter, The Assessee Preferred A Miscellaneous Application (Ma)

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37

…cumstances, the Ld. AR pleaded for admission of the additional ground [for the first time] before this Tribunal by relying on the following case laws:- I. Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT and Another (187 ITR 688) (SC) II. Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs. ACIT (408 ITR 500) (Bom HC) III. CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd (349 ITR 336) (Bom HC) IV. Balmukund Acharya Vs. DCIT (176 Taxman 316) (Bom HC) V. Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd Vs. DCIT (15 SOT 252) (Mum Trib) 4 A.Y. 2010-11 M/s. Concentrix Services India Pvt. Ltd. 5. Further, the Ld. AR fairly admitted before us that in the subsequent assessment y…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., (AS A SUCCESSOR TO SOKTAS INDIA PVT.LTD,.,), KOLHAPUR

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.206/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Soktas India Private Income Tax, Cicle-1, V Limited, Plot No.T-8, Kolhapur. S Kagal Five Star, M.I.D.C, Kolhapur – 416003. Pan: Aakcs 5899 J Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.206/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner of Soktas India Private Income Tax, Cicle-1, V Limited, Plot NO.T-8, Kolhapur. s Kagal Five Star, M.I.D.C, Kolhapur – 416003. PAN: AAKCS 5899 J Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.23/PUN/2021 (arising out of ITA No.23/PUN/2021) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Grasim Industries Limited The Assistant (As…

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…36(1)(viia) of the Act as allowed by the AO may be withdrawn.In relation to theDepartmental representative‟s stand on non-admission of additional grounds by relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2018] 408 ITR 500 (Bombay), the Ld. Counsel of assessee argued that whether or not to allow an additional ground to be raised before the appellate authority is to be decided by the appellate authority in exercise of its discretion considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it. 103. We noted that in the assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99, the asses…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…36(1)(viia) of the Act as allowed by the AO may be withdrawn.In relation to theDepartmental representative‟s stand on non-admission of additional grounds by relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2018] 408 ITR 500 (Bombay), the Ld. Counsel of assessee argued that whether or not to allow an additional ground to be raised before the appellate authority is to be decided by the appellate authority in exercise of its discretion considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it. 103. We noted that in the assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99, the asses…

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

…ad) (iv) CIT v. Jindal polyster Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 (All.) (v) Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. (19780 111 ITR 1 (SC) (vi) CIT v. EdwerKeventer (Successors0 P. ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (Delhi) (vii) Ultratech Cement ltd. v. Addl. CiT, Range-2(2) (2017) 298 CTR 437 (Bom) (viii) Self Knitting Works v. CiT (2014) 227 taxman 253 (P&H) The ld. DR relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that as per the settled position of law, the objection raised by the Id. A.R during the course of hearing of the appeal as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty 271 (…

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…onal ground of appeal before him claiming deduction of Employees Stock Option Scheme (ESOS) of ₹143,24,22,420/-. He did not admit additional ground relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT [2018] 408 ITR 500 (Bombay) dated 18th April, 2017. He held that a. Act of treating the above expenditure on ESOP as capital expenditure as well as treating the same in the computation of total income in a similar manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961.…

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…onal ground of appeal before him claiming deduction of Employees Stock Option Scheme (ESOS) of ₹143,24,22,420/-. He did not admit additional ground relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT [2018] 408 ITR 500 (Bombay) dated 18th April, 2017. He held that a. Act of treating the above expenditure on ESOP as capital expenditure as well as treating the same in the computation of total income in a similar manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961.…

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…onal ground of appeal before him claiming deduction of Employees Stock Option Scheme (ESOS) of ₹143,24,22,420/-. He did not admit additional ground relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT [2018] 408 ITR 500 (Bombay) dated 18th April, 2017. He held that a. Act of treating the above expenditure on ESOP as capital expenditure as well as treating the same in the computation of total income in a similar manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961.…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…onal ground of appeal before him claiming deduction of Employees Stock Option Scheme (ESOS) of ₹143,24,22,420/-. He did not admit additional ground relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT [2018] 408 ITR 500 (Bombay) dated 18th April, 2017. He held that a. Act of treating the above expenditure on ESOP as capital expenditure as well as treating the same in the computation of total income in a similar manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961.…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…onal ground of appeal before him claiming deduction of Employees Stock Option Scheme (ESOS) of ₹143,24,22,420/-. He did not admit additional ground relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT [2018] 408 ITR 500 (Bombay) dated 18th April, 2017. He held that a. Act of treating the above expenditure on ESOP as capital expenditure as well as treating the same in the computation of total income in a similar manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961.…

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…onal ground of appeal before him claiming deduction of Employees Stock Option Scheme (ESOS) of ₹143,24,22,420/-. He did not admit additional ground relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT [2018] 408 ITR 500 (Bombay) dated 18th April, 2017. He held that a. Act of treating the above expenditure on ESOP as capital expenditure as well as treating the same in the computation of total income in a similar manner was a willful act on part of the assessee and hence, it does not fulfill the basic condition of the provisions of Section 250(5) of the Act, 1961.…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ARCH PHARMALABS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6807/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE P. P. BHATT, PRESIDENT & HON’BLE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (AY: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (AY: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (AY: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (AY: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (AY: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (AY: 2005-06) ACIT CC-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4th floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्था…

ARCH PHARMALABAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 32, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6656/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (Ay: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (Ay: 2005-06) Acit Cc-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8089/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2004-05) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 8090/Mum/2011 (Ay: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6807/Mum/2017 (Ay: 2011-12) Arch Pharmalabas Ltd. Acit Cc-32, H-Wing, 4Th Floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, DR
Section 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE P. P. BHATT, PRESIDENT & HON’BLE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6656/Mum/2017 (AY: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7595/Mum/2011 (AY: 2005-06) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7597/Mum/2011 (AY: 2008-09) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3752/Mum/2012 (AY: 2007-08) Cross Objection No. 06/Mum/2021 (AY: 2004-05) Cross Objection No. 07/Mum/2021 (AY: 2005-06) ACIT CC-32, Arch Pharmalabs Ltd. H-Wing, 4th floor, Tex Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Centre, Off. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्था…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (408 ITR 500) — Cited in 32 Judgments | BharatTax