DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect of assets

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 801A(12A) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the revenue has preferred an appeal\nbefore the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the same issue for 2010-11, 2012-\n13, 2013-14 & 2014-15?\"\n5. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) is right

JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

12A(b) of of of the Act. 4. It It It is is is submitted submitted submitted that that that the the the denial denial denial of of of exemption exemption exemption under under under Section 11 of the Act, as discussed above, has led to Section 11 of the Act, as discussed above, has led to Section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-26(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

TDS was claimed, interest under section 234C was levied of Rs.6,28,875/- and a refund of Rs.78,02,260/- was determined and claimed. Whereas in the intimation under section 143(1), the CPC Bengaluru determined the tax at the maximum marginal rate of 30% (instead of slab rates) amounting to R.2,94,09,267/-; surcharge at the rate

DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS for Rs.5.34 Lacs. First, we take up corporate tax issues. Corporate Tax Issues (Ground Nos. 3 to 12) 3.3.1 Disallowance u/s 14A (Ground Nos. 6 to 10) The disallowance u/s 14A stem from similar factual matrix. The assessee had offered suo-moto disallowance of Rs.13.26 Lacs as tabulated in para 5.1 of the quantum assessment order. However, disregarding

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 801A(12A) of the IT Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in not directing the learned JCIT to allow claim of TDS