PATEL ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

TDS credit on advances received : ₹ 19,52,82,263/- iv. Additions based on AIR reconciliation: ₹ 22,97, 86,725/- Vi. Initiation of Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) 4. Aggrieved, by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has filed elaborated written submissions in respect of additions made

SUDHIR VRUNDAVANDAS VALIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIR-20(1), MUMBAI

801A(4)(iv) of Rs.2,46,16,267/- It is seen from the details available on record and the information available on 360 degree profile that Form No 10CCB in respect of you undertaking at Nashik has been filed and the same is unsigned As per the Form No. 10CCB, AY 2018-19 is the first year of claiming

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

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

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

801A(4) of the Act. Hence, the\nsaid decision does not address the or"/ controversy of\n\"developer\" v. \"contractor.\"\n45. Thus, we hold that assessee is a developer of each of the\ninfrastructure facility mentioned hereinabove and considering\nthe scope of work undertaken by the assessee in each of the\ncontracts, the work carried out by the assessee cannot

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

801A(4) of the Act. Hence, the\nsaid decision does not address the or"/ controversy of\n\"developer\" v. \"contractor.\"\n45. Thus, we hold that assessee is a developer of each of the\ninfrastructure facility mentioned hereinabove and considering\nthe scope of work undertaken by the assessee in each of the\ncontracts, the work carried out by the assessee cannot

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

801A(4) of the Act. Hence, the\nsaid decision does not address the or"/ controversy of\n\"developer\" v. \"contractor.\"\n45. Thus, we hold that assessee is a developer of each of the\ninfrastructure facility mentioned hereinabove and considering\nthe scope of work undertaken by the assessee in each of the\ncontracts, the work carried out by the assessee cannot

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)

801A(4) of the Act. Hence, the said decision does not address the or"/ controversy of "developer" v. "contractor.” 45. Thus, we hold that assessee is a developer of each of the infrastructure facility mentioned hereinabove and considering the scope of work undertaken by the assessee in each of the contracts, the work carried out by the assessee cannot

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

801A(4) of the Act. Hence, the\nsaid decision does not address the or"/ controversy of\n\"developer\" v. \"contractor.\"\n45. Thus, we hold that assessee is a developer of each of the\ninfrastructure facility mentioned hereinabove and considering\nthe scope of work undertaken by the assessee in each of the\ncontracts, the work carried out by the assessee cannot

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAVKAR CORPORATION LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, we affirm the order of the Ld

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

Section 80IA and after incorporating the balance sheet and profit and loss account, ld. AO noted that the expenses apportioned between eligible and non-eligible unit is @65.88% and 34.11% respectively in the following manner:- Total expenses claimed as per the consolidated P&L account on record lac(100%) Rs.30,274.26 Expenses apportioned to the eligible unit (65.88%) Rs.19

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

801A(4) of the Act. Hence, the\nsaid decision does not address the or"/ controversy of\n\"developer\" v. \"contractor.\"\n45. Thus, we hold that assessee is a developer of each of the\ninfrastructure facility mentioned hereinabove and considering\nthe scope of work undertaken by the assessee in each of the\ncontracts, the work carried out by the assessee cannot

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

section 801A(4)(i) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Assessee paid contract price as per contractual obligations on completion of work and TDS

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

section 801A(4)(i) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Assessee paid contract price as per contractual obligations on completion of work and TDS

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

801A(4) is claimed. Copies of Agreement have been submitted by the appellant and the same have been place on record. A brief summary of the Agreement is as shown hereunder: 1) Koyna Project EXTENSION OF HEAD RACE TUNNEL (HRT) FOR WATER SUPPLY AND IRRIGATION IN KOYNA PROJECT (Government of Maharashtra - Irrigation Department)  The construction of extension of Head Race

M/S. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CEN CIR 24 & 26, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

801A ( 4) on one project namely AS-18 " of Rs.9,95,41,994/- which was restricted to gross total income of Rs. 3,02,81,419/-. Assessment was completed under 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.3,02,81,419/-. In the assessment, AO disallowed the - assessee's -claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) by holding

M/S. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CEN CIR 24 & 26, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

801A ( 4) on one project namely AS-18 " of Rs.9,95,41,994/- which was restricted to gross total income of Rs. 3,02,81,419/-. Assessment was completed under 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.3,02,81,419/-. In the assessment, AO disallowed the - assessee's -claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) by holding

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after all the machines

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after all the machines

BHINMAL CONTRACTORS PROPERTY & LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

801A(4) it was held that to avail benefit assesses was to carry out all these activities. 10. The amendment in section 80-IA was brought by the Finance Act, 1995, with effect from 1-4-1996. By virtue of this amendment, the deduction under section 80-IA was provided to any enterprise carrying on the business of developing, maintaining