DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

56,48,096/- represents the recovery of represents the recovery of old dues under SARFAESI Act by appellant bank & amount old dues under SARFAESI Act by appellant bank & amount old dues under SARFAESI Act by appellant bank & amount credited to Excise duty pa credited to Excise duty payable on behalf of the defaulting yable on behalf of the defaulting party

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

56,48,096/- represents the recovery of represents the recovery of old dues under SARFAESI Act by appellant bank & amount old dues under SARFAESI Act by appellant bank & amount old dues under SARFAESI Act by appellant bank & amount credited to Excise duty pa credited to Excise duty payable on behalf of the defaulting yable on behalf of the defaulting party

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

TDS and advance tax payments of HLCL were not considered. The effective date of amalgamation was June 01, 2004 and the appointed date of amalgamation was April 01, 2002 i.e. HLCL amalgamated with the assessee w.e.f. April 2002. After amalgamation, the assessee filed a revised return of income for the financial year 2002-03 relevant to the impugned assessment year

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

IB, etc from the „Gross Total Income of the Undertaking‟, which may arise from different 14 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd specified activities in these provisions and other incomes may exclude interest income from the ambit of Deductions under these provisions, but exemption under Section 10-A and 10- B of the Act encompasses the entire income derived

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

IB, etc from the „Gross Total Income of the Undertaking‟, which may arise from different 14 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd specified activities in these provisions and other incomes may exclude interest income from the ambit of Deductions under these provisions, but exemption under Section 10-A and 10- B of the Act encompasses the entire income derived

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

56,894/- There was admittedly neither deduction of tax at source by the assessee, nor any certificate toward non-deduction of tax u/s. 195(2) stood obtained by it. Though the ld. CIT(A) approved the Revenue’s case in principle, i.e., qua the applicability of section 40(a)(i) of the Act to the said payments in the facts

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

56,894/- There was admittedly neither deduction of tax at source by the assessee, nor any certificate toward non-deduction of tax u/s. 195(2) stood obtained by it. Though the ld. CIT(A) approved the Revenue’s case in principle, i.e., qua the applicability of section 40(a)(i) of the Act to the said payments in the facts

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

IB and since it had been allowed in the assessment order passed under section 143(1), it had escaped assessment. On these facts the initiation of the proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 was legal and in accordance with law. 2.19. Likewise, in the case of Sunil Kumar lain: Suresh

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

TDS and the loan amount was returned along with interest. This observation of the learned CIT(A) was never contradicted at any staed. It was noted that the claim/explanation of the assessee was never repudiated by the learned Assessing Officer with the help of any evidence and even no independent evidence was gathered to establish the surrounding circumstances

ASST CIT 14(1), MUMBAI vs. KANTILAL C JAIN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

IB and since it had been allowed in the assessment order passed under section 143(1), it had escaped assessment. On these facts the initiation of the proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 was legal and in accordance with law. 3.18. Likewise, in the case of Sunil Kumar lain: Suresh

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

56. The issue about eligibility to claim tax holiday/deduction of the eligible undertaking by a successor, (not necessarily in the context of 80IA but other similar tax holiday provisions) had arisen number of times for adjudication before the Courts prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA of the IT Act. We observe that the Courts have taken

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

56. The issue about eligibility to claim tax holiday/deduction of the eligible undertaking by a successor, (not necessarily in the context of 80IA but other similar tax holiday provisions) had arisen number of times for adjudication before the Courts prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA of the IT Act. We observe that the Courts have taken

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

56. The issue about eligibility to claim tax holiday/deduction of the eligible undertaking by a successor, (not necessarily in the context of 80IA but other similar tax holiday provisions) had arisen number of times for adjudication before the Courts prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA of the IT Act. We observe that the Courts have taken

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

56. The issue about eligibility to claim tax holiday/deduction of the eligible undertaking by a successor, (not necessarily in the context of 80IA but other similar tax holiday provisions) had arisen number of times for adjudication before the Courts prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA of the IT Act. We observe that the Courts have taken

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

56. The issue about eligibility to claim tax holiday/deduction of the eligible undertaking by a successor, (not necessarily in the context of 80IA but other similar tax holiday provisions) had arisen number of times for adjudication before the Courts prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA of the IT Act. We observe that the Courts have taken

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

56. The issue about eligibility to claim tax holiday/deduction of the eligible undertaking by a successor, (not necessarily in the context of 80IA but other similar tax holiday provisions) had arisen number of times for adjudication before the Courts prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA of the IT Act. We observe that the Courts have taken

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

56. The issue about eligibility to claim tax holiday/deduction of the eligible undertaking by a successor, (not necessarily in the context of 80IA but other similar tax holiday provisions) had arisen number of times for adjudication before the Courts prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA of the IT Act. We observe that the Courts have taken

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

56. The issue about eligibility to claim tax holiday/deduction of the eligible undertaking by a successor, (not necessarily in the context of 80IA but other similar tax holiday provisions) had arisen number of times for adjudication before the Courts prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA of the IT Act. We observe that the Courts have taken