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

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

10A thereof, provides for the procedure to be followed\nby every corresponding new bank for the purposes of holding its\nannual general meeting.\nThus, the said Act deals with various other procedural aspects\nwhich will apply only to a corresponding new bank. Reference\nhas been made to these provisions to show that the aspects\nrelating to maintenance of books

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

10A thereof, provides for the procedure to be followed\nby every corresponding new bank for the purposes of holding its\nannual general meeting.\nThus, the said Act deals with various other procedural aspects\nwhich will apply only to a corresponding new bank. Reference\nhas been made to these provisions to show that the aspects\nrelating to maintenance of books

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ia) of the IT Act and\nnot just a proportion of the said amount as deductible revenue expenditure\nsince the payees have discharged their tax liability on the non-compete fee\npaid by the Appellant by furnishing their return of income during the subject\nyear.\n7. Ground 7 - Allowance of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation\nof AY 2008-09\n7.1

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

gain tax us 50B in the hand of seller.\nWhereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature\nof amalgamation. Before us, the learned counsel has referred to various\nclauses of business transfer agreement (BTA) in respect of units acquired from\nGSK and CTPL respectively. On perusal of relevant clauses referred, we find\nthat transaction in both

M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT -2(3), 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. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital loss of Rs. 8,56,000 arising on sale of units of Mutual Fund not be disallowed. 4) (a) The CIT(A) ought to have held that the appellants had not entered into any International transaction. (b) The CIT(A) ought to have held that the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 2(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

gain tax us 50B in the hand of seller.\nWhereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature\nof amalgamation. Before us, the learned counsel has referred to various\nclauses of business transfer agreement (BTA) in respect of units acquired from\nGSK and CTPL respectively. On perusal of relevant clauses referred, we find\nthat transaction in both

THERMO FISHER SCIENFTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

gain tax us 50B in the hand of seller.\nWhereas the according the Assessing officer the acquisitions are in the nature\nof amalgamation. Before us, the learned counsel has referred to various\nclauses of business transfer agreement (BTA) in respect of units acquired from\nGSK and CTPL respectively. On perusal of relevant clauses referred, we find\nthat transaction in both