DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

gains derived by an undertaking that is engaged in the eligible activity of power generation. b. The SDT for which ALP is required to be determined is the 'supply of power by the eligible power generation unit". c. The method chosen to determine the ALP as well as the choice of tested party should be such as to arrive

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

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

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

gains of such undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business shall be computed as if the transfer, in either case, had been made at the market value of such goods or services as on that date. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "market value",- (i) in relation to any goods or services sold or supplied

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)

8. In response to show cause notice, assessee had filed its detailed reply which has been incorporated in the order passed by the ld. AO in para 5. However, the ld. AO rejected the assessee’s submissions and also distinguished judgments relied upon by the assessee. First of all, AO held that from the reading of the agreement between IRCON

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 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

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

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

8 of present appeal of assessee stands allowed.\n\n22\nITA No. 3157/MUM/2012, ITA No. 4109/MUM/2012\nITA No.5690/MUM/2015 & CO No. 144/MUM/2016\n\n10. Ground No. 10: Regarding disallowance of Rs.10,01,707/- of\noverseas taxes paid by the assessee and claimed as deduction u/s 37 of\nthe Act\n\n10.1 On this issue the Ld. AO observed that the assessee

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

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

8. Ground No.VI raised by the Revenue reads as under: “VI. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP-II erred in directing to delete the addition of Rs.88,64,94,300/- on account of disallowing depreciation on Passive Infrastructure Assets (PI).” 8.1. The relevant facts in brief are that in terms of the Scheme

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

MARTIN AND HARRIS LABORATORIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PCIT), AAYKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI-400020

In the result, the present appeal by the Assessee is allowed

8) of section 80 IC defines "Substantial Expansion as the increase in the investment in the plant and machinery by at least fifty percent of the book value of plant and machinery (before taking depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken. Sub-section (6) of the section