RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Capital employed by the unit, whereas the facts were entirely different for the impugned AY wherein the TPO has determined the arm's length value of the transaction and therefore, the CIT(A) cannot rely on the earlier years orders of the Tribunal? (Included in 7) 13.2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Capital employed by the unit, whereas the facts were entirely different for the impugned AY wherein the TPO has determined the arm's length value of the transaction and therefore, the CIT(A) cannot rely on the earlier years orders of the Tribunal? (Included in 7) 13.2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

801A of the Act on the following:\n6.1 Served from India Scheme (SFIS) income of Rs 3,31,38,860\n6.2 Rs 92,75,000 disallowed under section 14A of the Act\nGround no 7- Addition of Rs 92,75,000 disallowed under section 14A\nwhile computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act\n7. On the facts

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

801A of the Act on the following:\n6.1 Served from India Scheme (SFIS) income of Rs 3,31,38,860\n6.2 Rs 92,75,000 disallowed under section 14A of the Act\nGround no 7- Addition of Rs 92,75,000 disallowed under section 14A\nwhile computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act\n7. On the facts

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

801A on the profits derived from respective units without deducting depreciation of respective units which is contrary to the provisions of above section. (e) Erred in direction the A.O. to grand deduction u/s 80HH & 80IAby including duty draw back. and interest which is contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in sterling Foods Ltd. (237ITR 579). (f) Erred in direction

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)

7. In the case of the assessee survey was conducted and during the course of a survey, it was seen that the assessee had defaulted in deducting tax at source on interest paid to AGE Patel Joint Venture (JV) in Financial Year (FY) 2016-17. The assessee was a member of the JV namely AGE Patel JV having PAN AAEAA6695G

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

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 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

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 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

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

801A of the I.T. Act in respect of the Rail System at Raipur of Rs.15,57,09,929/- and Rs.13,05,18,489/- at Hotgi, without appreciating the fact that the Rail System was not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 80-IA(4) (i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and that the assessee

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

801A of the I.T. Act in respect of the Rail System at Raipur\nof Rs.15,57,09,929/- and Rs.13,05,18,489/- at Hotgi, without appreciating the fact\nthat the Rail System was not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of the\nExplanation to Section 80-IA(4) (i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and that the assessee

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore\nstands dismissed

gains of an\ninfrastructure capital fund or an infrastructure capital company from investments made\nby way of shares or long-term finance in any enterprise carrying on the business of\ndeveloping, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility which fulfills the\nconditions specified in sub-section (4A) of section 80-IA is proposed to be exempt from\nincome tax.\n\nThe

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

capital in nature and the balance amount of loss of INR 5.005 crores is revenue loss. 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the learned DRP and the learned AO have erred in importing the phrase derived from and its implication while computing deduction under non-obstante section 80IA

ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

801A(8) has clearly defined that "Market Value" means the price of goods/services would fetch, if these were sold by the unit/undertaking in the open market subject to statutory regulations, if any and the assessee had clearly violated this section 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

gains as the shares shall be deemed to have been held for a period exceeding 12 months by the assessee.‖ 49. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that in the present case, the date of acquisition of debentures, i.e. 27/06/1997, be considered as the date of acquisition of the equity shares for the computation

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

gains as the shares shall be deemed to have been held for a period exceeding 12 months by the assessee.‖ 49. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that in the present case, the date of acquisition of debentures, i.e. 27/06/1997, be considered as the date of acquisition of the equity shares for the computation