“Section 3(12)”

ASCENDAS PANVEL FTWZ PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the above terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

maintenance of six operating warehouses forming part of the FTWZ. Pursuant thereto, the assessee applied for approval as a co- developer under section 3(12) of the SEZ Act, 2005, and such approval was granted by the Department of Commerce on 05.12.2016 for providing infrastructure facilities, including operation and maintenance ... developers during the development phase. It was submitted that insisting upon completion of the entire SEZ as a pre-condition would render section 3(12) of the SEZ Act otiose and defeat the very purpose of the incentive scheme. Reliance was placed on settled principles that beneficial provisions must

ASCENDAS PANVEL FTWZ PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in the above terms

maintenance\nof six operating warehouses forming part of the FTWZ.\nPursuant thereto, the assessee applied for approval as a co-\ndeveloper under section 3(12) of the SEZ Act, 2005, and such\napproval was granted by the Department of Commerce on\n05.12.2016 for providing infrastructure facilities, including\noperation and maintenance ... identified area may, after entering into an\nagreement with the Developer, make a proposal to the Board\nfor approval.\n(vi) Section 3(12) provides that every person referred to in\nsection 3(11), whose proposal has been approved by the Board\nand who has been granted a letter

ASCENDAS PANVEL FTWZ PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in the above terms

maintenance\nof six operating warehouses forming part of the FTWZ.\nPursuant thereto, the assessee applied for approval as a co-\ndeveloper under section 3(12) of the SEZ Act, 2005, and such\napproval was granted by the Department of Commerce on\n05.12.2016 for providing infrastructure facilities, including\noperation and maintenance ... identified area may, after entering into an\nagreement with the Developer, make a proposal to the Board\nfor approval.\n(vi) Section 3(12) provides that every person referred to in\nsection 3(11), whose proposal has been approved by the Board\nand who has been granted a letter

DCIT-CC-8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit-Cc-8(4), Savita Oil Technologies Limited Mumbai 66-67 Nariman Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021, Pan: Aaacs7934A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Chaitanya Joshi, Cas Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit (A) 50, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1075632908(1), Dated 15.04.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit,Cc- 8(4), Mumbai, U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 24.08.2021 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Justified In Law In Allowing Deduction Under Section 80-Ia(4) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Without Adjusting The Losses Incurred By The Eligible Undertaking Prior To The Initial Assessment Year, Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80-Ia(S)? 2. Whether The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Correct In Law In Relying Upon Cbdt Circular No. 1/2016 & The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Vcllayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (340 Itr 477) When There Exist Contrary Binding Judicial Precedents Mandating That Losses Of Earlier Years, Even

Bombay after dealing with various legal aspects of this issue, concluded in para-69 and 70 of its judgement that provisions of section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act as amended by Finance (2) Act, 2024, dated 16.08.2024 would apply only prospectively. Thus, interest levied prior to this period