BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( FORMERLY BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

80I(5) of the Act which \nread as under: \n \n \n “Section 80-IA. \n \n (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any \nprofits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from \nany business referred to in sub-section (4) (such business being \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA

ACIT (CIR.) - 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHANDAR POWER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

capital;  Operation and maintenance expenses;——" Further, as per clause 21 of the aforementioned Notification, which deals with Computation and Payment of Capacity Charge and Energy for Thermal Generating Stations "The total capacity charge payable for a generating station shall be shared by its beneficiaries as per their respective percentage share/allocation in the capacity of the generating station." From the aforesaid

M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT2(3) (1) - , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

capital, return on equity and income tax and derived at a tariff rate of Rs.3.99/- for the F.Y. 2016-17. Accordingly, the TP adjustment was reduced to Rs.15,23,15,220/-. 9. We have heard both the parties at length and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. Before us, the ld. DR referred to various observations

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. ()

80I / 80IB (Grounds 2 – 2.1 to 2.3) (3) Allocation of expenditure to individual units in respect of deduction u/s 80IB (Ground 3) (4) Deduction under section 80IB in respect of tea unit at Dharwad (Ground 4 – 4.1 to 4.2) (5) Allocating research expenses whilst determining the profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IB (Ground

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)

80I-A by sections 80-IA and 80-IB of the Income-tax Act. The substituted section 80-IA, inter alia, in sub-section (12) provides that where any undertaking of an Indian company entitled to the deduction under this section is transferred to another Indian company in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger before the expiry of the specified

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)

80I-A by sections 80-IA and 80-IB of the Income-tax Act. The substituted section 80-IA, inter alia, in sub-section (12) provides that where any undertaking of an Indian company entitled to the deduction under this section is transferred to another Indian company in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger before the expiry of the specified

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

KBS CREATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

80I(10) states that in case the aforesaid transactioninvolvesSDT, the amount of profit from such transactions shall be determined having regard to the arm’s length price, as define in section 92F(ii). 5. The DRP after considering the submission of assessee recorded that one of the objections of assessee is that proceedings were void ab initioas pre- requisite

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Addl Cit Range 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Rd, Worli Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Cir- 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Rd, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1201R

80I-A @ 16% of investment, which was considered reasonable rate of return in case of Power Generation Plants by Ministry of Power while fixing tariff for electricity. 10. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA in respect of Foil Plant at Silvasaa

HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Addl Cit Range 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Rd, Worli Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Cir- 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Rd, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1201R

80I-A @ 16% of investment, which was considered reasonable rate of return in case of Power Generation Plants by Ministry of Power while fixing tariff for electricity. 10. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA in respect of Foil Plant at Silvasaa

HINDUSTHAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT RANGE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly\nallowed

80I of the Act and restored\nthe issue to the file of AO with the instruction to follow the directions given\nin AY 2006-07 with regard to allocation of common expenses incurred at\nthe Head Office. It is also pertinent to note that the Co-ordinate Bench\nhas also accepted the plea of the assessee that certain “common income

M/S. ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. THE HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Hindustan Unilever Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hindustan Lever Income Tax, Range 1(1) House, 165/166 Backbay Mumbai Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Acit-1(1), Vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Room No. 579, Ltd., 165/166, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Chandip Singh Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assesse & The Revenue Are Pertained To Assessment Year 2000-01 Based On Similar Fact & P A G E | 2

capital expenditure 14.1 He failed to appreciate that the legal cost was incurred during the year and was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the appellant. 15. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction of appellant's claim under section 80-0 by notional expenditure of Rs.77,319/- 15.1 He failed

M/S. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (TDS)-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Hindustan Unilever Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hindustan Lever Income Tax, Range 1(1) House, 165/166 Backbay Mumbai Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Acit-1(1), Vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Room No. 579, Ltd., 165/166, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Chandip Singh Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assesse & The Revenue Are Pertained To Assessment Year 2000-01 Based On Similar Fact & P A G E | 2

capital expenditure 14.1 He failed to appreciate that the legal cost was incurred during the year and was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the appellant. 15. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction of appellant's claim under section 80-0 by notional expenditure of Rs.77,319/- 15.1 He failed

DCIT 1 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly\nallowed

80I of the Act and restored\nthe issue to the file of AO with the instruction to follow the directions given\nin AY 2006-07 with regard to allocation of common expenses incurred at\nthe Head Office. It is also pertinent to note that the Co-ordinate Bench\nhas also accepted the plea of the assessee that certain “common income