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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

801A which reads as under: 'Where any amount of profits and gains of an industrial undertaking or of an enterprise in the case of an assessee is claimed and allowed under this section for ITA. No. 6591 & 6549/Mum/2010 (AY 2004-05) ITA. No. 2780 & 2849/Mum/2011 (AY 2005-06) any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

801A which reads as under: 'Where any amount of profits and gains of an industrial undertaking or of an enterprise in the case of an assessee is claimed and allowed under this section for ITA. No. 6591 & 6549/Mum/2010 (AY 2004-05) ITA. No. 2780 & 2849/Mum/2011 (AY 2005-06) any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, C.O. filed by assessee is\ndismissed as infructuous

gains derived by an\nundertaking that is engaged in the eligible activity of power generation.\nb. The SDT for which ALP is required to be determined is the 'supply of power by\nthe eligible power generation unit\".\nc. The method chosen to determine the ALP as well as the choice of tested party\nshould be such as to arrive

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