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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

TDS was deductible u/s 194J of the Act. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd (supra), no doubt, the claim of the assessee is liable to be allowable, hence, we ordered ITA. No.2522/Mum/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 accordingly. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

80J ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer's order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the revenue for the assessment year 1977-78 as there is no tax effect ?" in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The revenue will

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the industrial undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the industrial undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation

ACIT - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2)(2) Sonata Software Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.348, 3Rd Floor 208, T.V. Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, M.K Road Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Worli, Mumbai 400 030 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcs8459D याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 21/03/2018

80J there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for breach of certain conditions.” 5.4 Considering the facts of the case in the light of the judicial decision cited herein above, in our considered opinion the claim of deduction cannot be denied unless claim is withdrawn right from the initial assessment year. Respectfully following the decisions

ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

TDS as per the provision of section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from 24 ITA NO.4669& 4556/MUM/2012

ACC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

TDS as per the provision of section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from 24 ITA NO.4669& 4556/MUM/2012

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATES CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

TDS as per the provision of section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from 24 ITA NO.4669& 4556/MUM/2012

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS as per the provision of section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from Singapore branch and which is a main lender

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS as per the provision of section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from Singapore branch and which is a main lender