ACIT C.C. 35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO FOODS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

capital which was duly admitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is unjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on proportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE ACIT CC-35,

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

capital which was duly admitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is unjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on proportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT

ACIT C.C.- 35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO INDSUTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

capital which was duly admitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is unjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on proportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT

THE ACIT CC-35 vs. M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

capital which was duly admitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is unjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on proportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. - 35, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

capital which was duly admitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is unjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on proportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

sections 30 to 44D have to be allowed as expenses.\nAfter including such receipts of income and after deducting such expenses,\nthe total of net receipts are profits of the business of the assessee computed\nunder the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" from which\ndeductions are to be made under Clauses (1) and (2) of Explanation

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

sections 30 to 44D have to be allowed as expenses.\nAfter including such receipts of income and after deducting such expenses,\nthe total of net receipts are profits of the business of the assessee computed\nunder the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession\" from which\ndeductions are to be made under Clauses (1) and (2) of Explanation

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN. CIR. - 35, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal bearing ITA No

capital which was duly\nadmitted by the revenue. We find that the method adopted by the Ld.AO is\nunjustified by ignoring the correct fact. The allocation was made by the Ld. AO on\nproportionate turnover. We respectfully follow the order of the co-ordinate\nbench of ITAT, Mumbai which was also duly affirmed by the co-ordinate bench of\nITAT

DCIT, CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

capital loss was reported to the tune of Rs. 22,90,54,766/-. This loss was as per section 55(2)(aa) which provides that in case of issue of bonus unit, the cost for original units remains the same. The assessee contended that loss of Rs. 22,90,54,766/- was computed as per section

M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (EARLIER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-8,KOLKATTA), MUMBAI

gain at 34,93,14,550/- without\nconsidering loss claimed in computation. Before the CIT (A),\nvide letter dated 21.02.2006, an explanation was submitted\nfor profit on sale of investment to be taken at Rs.\n2,00,45,757/-. The assessee before CIT(A) explained the loss\narising out of bonus plan and dividend plan was explained.\n\n54. However

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)

44D of the Act and is not included in the profits of business as computed under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession", ninety per cent of such quantum of receipts cannot be reduced under Clause (1) of Explanation (baa) from the profits of the business. In other words, only ninety per cent of the net amount

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question