M/S. INDAGRO FOODS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - (OSD) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

capital outlet, sophisticated machinery and engagement of skill labour, no significant degree of value addition to the end-product. The process carried out by assessee does not result into different marketable product. We have noted that the ld. AR of the assessee has explained that the end-use product manufactured by assessee is distinct and entirely different from the original

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

gains\nderived by the undertaking from the eligible business, and the business of\nleasing out of assets is not one such business as referred to in section 80-\nIA(4) of the Act. The AO further held that the income relating to such sharing\nof infrastructure with other operators is not related to providing\ntelecommunication services by the assessee

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

capital gains). Under Section 72, a provision has been made for carry forward and setting off of a loss sustained against the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Under Section 72, where a loss which has been sustained under the head of profits and gains of business or profession cannot be set off against income under

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

IA of the Act by treating ‘eligible business’ as the ‘only source of income’.” 25 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 21. We notice that sub-section (3) of section 80HHE which deals with the manner of computation of eligible deduction states that for the purpose of deduction “Profits derived from the business” shall be considered and that sub section

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

10A. Furthermore, from the perusal of the details of utilization of the ICD placed by MMPL in MIDL as provided in Annexure 108 it can be seen that the entire ICD amount has been utilized by MIDL for retirement of the trade dues of the MMPL. No part of the ICD has been diverted, utilized or accrued to the ultimate

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

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

gains from 100% of export oriented unit Etah amounting to Rs.5,03,65,774/- which included miscellaneous income of Rs.30,361. The assessee submitted that the miscellaneous income consists of realisation from scrap sale which is derived from the industrial undertaking. Therefore it was submitted that the said income should be eligible for deduction under section 10B. The Assessing Officer

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

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

ia) – Ground 7  Allowing foreign tax credit in respect of income pertaining to section 10A/10AA eligible units in India – Ground 8  Restricting the TP adjustment made on account of provision of softwares and consultancy services by relying on CIT(A)‟s order in assessee‟s case – Ground 9  Provision of performance guarantee and lease guarantee Ground 10  Deleting the adjustment

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

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

ia) – Ground 7  Allowing foreign tax credit in respect of income pertaining to section 10A/10AA eligible units in India – Ground 8  Restricting the TP adjustment made on account of provision of softwares and consultancy services by relying on CIT(A)‟s order in assessee‟s case – Ground 9  Provision of performance guarantee and lease guarantee Ground 10  Deleting the adjustment

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AJJAY AGARWAL (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.4295/Mum/2023 of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gains from the sale of shares is not genuine." Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 has held that test of human probabilities should not be applied to verify whether any transactions is real or an attempt has been made

ECHJAY INDUSTRIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital expenditure. Hence we hold that the foreign travel expenses are incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee and accordingly allowable as deduction. 5.2. We find that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Apollo Tyres Ltd reported in 237 ITR 706 (Ker) in the context of foreign travel expenses of wife

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

2. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Sri Velayudaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 582/Mds/2013 3. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1836/Mds/2012; We direct the AO to treat the Proceeds realized from sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) generated out of Capital Projects registered

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

2. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Sri Velayudaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 582/Mds/2013 3. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1836/Mds/2012; We direct the AO to treat the Proceeds realized from sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) generated out of Capital Projects registered

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

2. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Sri Velayudaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 582/Mds/2013 3. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1836/Mds/2012; We direct the AO to treat the Proceeds realized from sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) generated out of Capital Projects registered

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

2. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Sri Velayudaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 582/Mds/2013 3. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1836/Mds/2012; We direct the AO to treat the Proceeds realized from sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) generated out of Capital Projects registered

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

2. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Sri Velayudaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 582/Mds/2013 3. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1836/Mds/2012; We direct the AO to treat the Proceeds realized from sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) generated out of Capital Projects registered

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

2. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Sri Velayudaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 582/Mds/2013 3. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1836/Mds/2012; We direct the AO to treat the Proceeds realized from sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) generated out of Capital Projects registered

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

2. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Sri Velayudaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 582/Mds/2013 3. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1836/Mds/2012; We direct the AO to treat the Proceeds realized from sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) generated out of Capital Projects registered

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

2. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Sri Velayudaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 582/Mds/2013 3. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1836/Mds/2012; We direct the AO to treat the Proceeds realized from sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CERs) generated out of Capital Projects registered

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)

2)(i) does not come in the way.” Thus, the sanctity of the CBDT Circular has been upheld in the context of section 80IB, confirming that the tax holiday moves along with the undertaking and the ownership has no relevance. 61. The said Circular has also been relied upon by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case