ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

801A as cost of the eligible undertakings. 100. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, only a few material facts need to be taken note of. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that while computing the deduction under section 80IA in respect of captive power plants, ports and rail systems, the assessee

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

801A as cost of the eligible undertakings. 100. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, only a few material facts need to be taken note of. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that while computing the deduction under section 80IA in respect of captive power plants, ports and rail systems, the assessee

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS deducted accordingly. Hence relationship between assessee and government is of contractor and contractee. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited 3. Assessee has acted as a contractor only on a specific contract allotted by its principal, cost of which has been reimbursed from the principal who are the actual owner/developers 4. Assessee's profits

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS deducted accordingly. Hence relationship between assessee and government is of contractor and contractee. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited 3. Assessee has acted as a contractor only on a specific contract allotted by its principal, cost of which has been reimbursed from the principal who are the actual owner/developers 4. Assessee's profits

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

801A(10) r.w. provision of Section 80IC(7) are applicable in this case and the assessee has shown excessive than normal profits in Rudrapur unit. 46. The AO has examined the unit wise accounts and found that Rudrapur unit has net profit margin of 20.80% whereas the company has overall profit margin of 7.75%, if income from other sources

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

10. We have heard both the parties at length and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order. The main allegation of the ld. AO is that considering the fact that the main M/s. Patel Engineering Limited agreement between IRCON and AGE Patel JV and the sub contractual agreement between AGE Patel JV and the assessee, and therefore

DCIT CC - 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed,\nexcept for one ground no

10%. Thereafter, accordingly, the payment of Rs.1,42,09,790/-\nwas treated in 2017-18 and likewise in A.Y.2018-19 of\nRs.2,07,57,565/- including interest u/s.201(1)(A).\n9. The ld. CIT (A) allowed assessee's appeal following the CBDT\nCircular dated 22/09/2017 wherein payments to Corporations\nlike IRCON, no tax is to be deducted at source. He also

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed,\nexcept for one ground no

10%. Thereafter, accordingly, the payment of Rs.1,42,09,790/-\nwas treated in 2017-18 and likewise in A.Y.2018-19 of\nRs.2,07,57,565/- including interest u/s.201(1)(A).\n9. The ld. CIT (A) allowed assessee's appeal following the CBDT\nCircular dated 22/09/2017 wherein payments to Corporations\nlike IRCON, no tax is to be deducted at source. He also

DCIT CC- 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

10%. Thereafter, accordingly, the payment of Rs.1,42,09,790/-\nwas treated in 2017-18 and likewise in A.Y.2018-19 of\nRs.2,07,57,565/- including interest u/s.201(1)(A).\n9. The ld. CIT (A) allowed assessee's appeal following the CBDT\nCircular dated 22/09/2017 wherein payments to Corporations\nlike IRCON, no tax is to be deducted at source. He also

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS 2 1, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed,\nexcept for one ground no

10%. Thereafter, accordingly, the payment of Rs.1,42,09,790/-\nwas treated in 2017-18 and likewise in A.Y.2018-19 of\nRs.2,07,57,565/- including interest u/s.201(1)(A).\n9. The ld. CIT (A) allowed assessee's appeal following the CBDT\nCircular dated 22/09/2017 wherein payments to Corporations\nlike IRCON, no tax is to be deducted at source. He also

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

10%. Thereafter, accordingly, the payment of Rs.1,42,09,790/-\nwas treated in 2017-18 and likewise in A.Y.2018-19 of\nRs.2,07,57,565/- including interest u/s.201(1)(A).\n9. The ld. CIT (A) allowed assessee's appeal following the CBDT\nCircular dated 22/09/2017 wherein payments to Corporations\nlike IRCON, no tax is to be deducted at source. He also

ACIT/DCIT 31(2), MUMBAI vs. PATEL PRATIBHA JV, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS was deducted as a contractor. By the impugned order, CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim after observing as under :- “5.3. I have gone through the facts as well as the contentions of the appellant. Section 80-IA of Act provides for- deduction of 100% of profit derived by an enterprise or undertaking from any business referred

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

801A, which states that nothing contained in this section shall apply to a person who executes a work contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprises ". 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing that the credit of TDS be allowed to the assessee in contravention to section

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

801A, which states that nothing contained in this section shall apply to a person who executes a work contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprises ". 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing that the credit of TDS be allowed to the assessee in contravention to section

ASST CIT CEN CIR 25, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

10); vi0 TDS Credit on advances received; vii) Computation of income u/s.115JB; viii) Interest u/s.234B; ix) Interest u/s.234D; and x) Initiation of Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) 3. The A.O has analyzed the various Agreements entered into and arrived at a finding that the assessee is merely a contractor as is referred to in all its Agreements with the various

ACIT (CIR.) - 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHANDAR POWER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS deducted. h) Name of all Sale parties in Non-80-IA & 80-IA Undertaking and number of units of power generated & sold to group concerns with price justification. i) Facility User Agreement. j) Agreement entered into by the assessee with GujUBNL for power supply. k) Statutory Certificates." Thereafter also the assessee replied the queries raised

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

801A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as claimed by the Assessee after verification of the computation as per law. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.5 raised by the Assessee is allowed. Ground No. 6 9. Ground

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

801A of the Act for the Assessment Year\n2011-12 and therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow\nthe deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as claimed by the\nAssessee after verification of the computation as per law. In\nterms of the aforesaid, Ground No.5 raised by the Assessee is\nallowed.\nGround No. 6\n9. Ground