“Section 42(1)”

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT - 10 (1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

deduction. d) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries ... uphold the same. 21. The next common issue relates urged by the revenue in both the years relates to disallowance made under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN- 98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 21.1 The assessee had entered into “Production Sharing Contracts

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

deduction. d) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries ... uphold the same. 21. The next common issue relates urged by the revenue in both the years relates to disallowance made under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN- 98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 21.1 The assessee had entered into “Production Sharing Contracts

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

deduction. d) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries ... uphold the same. 21. The next common issue relates urged by the revenue in both the years relates to disallowance made under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN- 98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 21.1 The assessee had entered into “Production Sharing Contracts

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

deduction. d) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act in respect of donations given under Corporate Social Responsibility. e) Disallowance under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN-98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 28 Reliance Industries ... uphold the same. 21. The next common issue relates urged by the revenue in both the years relates to disallowance made under section 42(1)(b) in respect of KG-DWN- 98/3 (KGD6 bloc) and Coal Bed Methane Sohagpur (CBM). 21.1 The assessee had entered into “Production Sharing Contracts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC., MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (It) – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Marriott International Design Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor & Construction Services Inc., Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 303A, 304, Fulcrum B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Mum/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2977/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19)] M/S. Marriott International Design V. Dcit (It) – 3(2)(1) & Construction Services Inc., Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 303A, 304, Fulcrum Nariman Point B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Paras Savla Department Represented By : Shri Kunal Haver

have accrued or arisen in India and that to rope in the income of the non resident under the deeming provision of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act it must be shown by the department that some of the operations were carried out in India in respect of which

BRIDGESTONE INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELH, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed,

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bridgestone India P.Ltd Plot No-A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc Addl/Jt/Dy/Cit/Ito, National E- Chakan, Village Sawardari, Assessment Centre Vs. Taluka Khed, Delhi-110 003 Pune-410501 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcb2304E Assessee By : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Adv Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023

Ld.AO be directed to treat the amount of ₹ 33,22,87,820/- as a capital receipt and being covered by Explanation 10 to section 42(1) of the Act. 2. The Ld. AO and Hon’ble DRP erred in making an addition of ₹ 13,80,54,016/- (gross subsidy

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

respect of the unsuccessful exploration cost incurred in contract area other than KGD 6 has been made in computation of income under section 42(1)(a) against the entire income of the assessee company while computing the business income. Accordingly, it was submitted that the unsuccessful exploration cost

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

respect of the unsuccessful exploration cost incurred in contract area other than KGD 6 has been made in computation of income under section 42(1)(a) against the entire income of the assessee company while computing the business income. Accordingly, it was submitted that the unsuccessful exploration cost

DCIT (IT) 3(2) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC., MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

have accrued or arisen in India and that to rope in the income of the non resident under the deeming provision of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act it must be shown by the department that some of the operations were carried out in India in respect of which

DCIT (IT) -3(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARRIOTT INTERNATION SERVICESAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

have accrued or arisen in India and that to rope in the income of the non resident under the deeming provision of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act it must be shown by the department that some of the operations were carried out in India in respect of which

DCIT (IT) -3(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

have accrued or arisen in India and that to rope in the income of the non resident under the deeming provision of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act it must be shown by the department that some of the operations were carried out in India in respect of which

DCIT (IT) -3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

have accrued or arisen in India and that to rope in the income of the non resident under the deeming provision of section 42(1) of the 1922 Act it must be shown by the department that some of the operations were carried out in India in respect of which

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

this Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01, by holding as under:- “14. After hearing both the parties and perusing the language of section 42(1)(b) of the Act, we observe that the language of section 42(1)(b) provides that deduction of any expenditure incurred by the assessee