J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

MRIGESH GAURAV,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD 42(2)(4),, MUMBAI

TDS of\nRs. 24,75,737/- was deducted by the employer and reflected in\nForm 26AS, the CPC while processing the return under section\n143(1) allowed credit of only Rs. 1,62,025/-, thereby granting\nshort credit of Rs. 23,13,712/-. The assessee contended that\nTDS credit should be granted in full. In support of this\ncontention, reliance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

173 xx xx xx xx ……” (Emphasis Supplied) 11.4. Being aggrieved the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 11.5. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 11.6. We find that Assessee had furnished details of Other Income credited to the Profit and Loss Account during the relevant previous year. Vide letter

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

1,33,71,83,173 under section 94B(4) of the Act,\nresulting in an incorrect reduction of carried forward interest losses.\n5. Ground No. 5: Disallowance of interest on CCDs under section 36\nread with section 37 of the Act\nBased on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/ TPO have\nerred

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

TDS" and "Advance Tax in Form 26AS of AY 2016-17. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. 9. Erroneous levy of interest under Section 2348 of the Act amounting to INR 3,46,58,553 [Refer Income tax computation Form along with Final Assessment Order] The learned AO erred in levying interest under Section

SHARANGPANI DINKAR PANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sharangpani Dinkar Ito It 3(3)(1), Pant, International Tax Ward- 402, Bhoomi Oscar, 3(3)(1), Plot No.16/17, Vs. Air India Building, Sector-9, Mumbai – 400 021 Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 701 Pan: Aippp0288E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Balaji V, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 02 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 02 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Amarjit Singh: Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Same Assessment Year I.E. 2018-19 Against The Two Different Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act On The Common Issue Of Allowability Of Tds Credit Of Rs.17,59,258/- Which Was Not Allowed By The Ao Vide Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act & Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Vide Ita

173 (Mum.) It is, therefore, prayed that the Ld. JAO be directed to allow credit of TDS of Rs. 17,59,258 as claimed in the ROI and reflected in Form 26AS as against TDS credit of Rs. 1,28,924 allowed in the intimation under Section

SHARANGPANI DINKAR PANT,MUMBAI vs. INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sharangpani Dinkar Ito It 3(3)(1), Pant, International Tax Ward- 402, Bhoomi Oscar, 3(3)(1), Plot No.16/17, Vs. Air India Building, Sector-9, Mumbai – 400 021 Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 701 Pan: Aippp0288E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Balaji V, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 02 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 02 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Amarjit Singh: Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Same Assessment Year I.E. 2018-19 Against The Two Different Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act On The Common Issue Of Allowability Of Tds Credit Of Rs.17,59,258/- Which Was Not Allowed By The Ao Vide Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act & Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Vide Ita

173 (Mum.) It is, therefore, prayed that the Ld. JAO be directed to allow credit of TDS of Rs. 17,59,258 as claimed in the ROI and reflected in Form 26AS as against TDS credit of Rs. 1,28,924 allowed in the intimation under Section

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

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

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

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

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

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

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

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

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

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

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

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

M/S SINNAR THERMAL POWER LTD(FORMERLY RATTANINDIA NASIK POWER LTD) ,DELHI vs. DY CIT CC 6 (4) , MUMBAI

173/- Nil 4. 2016-17 644,37,17,183/- Nil 5. 2017-18 644,31,90,000/- Nil 6. Sinnar Thermal 2011-12 710,93,64,000/- Nil 7. Power Limited 2012-13 1240,98,56,511/- 12,50,00,000/- (formerly known as 8. 2015-16 1963,00,67,083/- Nil Rattanindia Nasik