SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

Charitable Foundation (supra) and the Trust’s claim of both application of income and depreciation was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, though it had imprints of a double deduction. It also pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of A.L.A. Chemicals (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein the facts were that

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Charitable Foundation (supra) and the Trust’s claim of both application of income and depreciation was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, though it had imprints of a double deduction. It also pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of A.L.A. Chemicals (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein the facts were that

VISHNU JANARDHAN SHIROLKAR MAHAJAN WADY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of\nappeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

80J. Similarly, Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in\nthe case of CIT vs. Sakal Relief Fund (2017) 81 taxmann.com 396 (Bom) also\nheld that Form-10B was filed during the re-assessment by assessee-trust the\nbenefit of accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act was available because\nsuch filing would be considered within the time allowed for furnishing return

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

80J ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer's order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the revenue for the assessment year 1977-78 as there is no tax effect ?" in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The revenue will

DR. PRABHA ATRE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

charitable trust registered under section 12AA of the Act and has been purportedly enjoying the benefits of section 11 since 2011. In the impugned assessment year, the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act has been denied to the assessee for the reason that assessee has failed to furnish audit report along with return of income. The contention

VISHNU JANARDHAN SHIROLKAR MAHAJAN WADY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-2(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

charitable institution and its one of the trustee has filed affidavit before ld CIT(A) in explaining similar facts. The ld CIT(A) instead of seeking any specific submissions rejected the plea of condonation of delay. Hon’ble Apex Court in a celebrated decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs MstKatiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 held that there is no presumption

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATES CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

80J of Income-tax Act, 1961), way back in 1963 and clarified the matter vide Letter: F No 15/5/63-IT (A-I), dated 13 December 1963, which reads as under:- "The Board agree the benefit of section 84 attaches to the undertaking and not to the owner, thereof. The successor will be entitled to the benefit for the unexpired period

ACC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

80J of Income-tax Act, 1961), way back in 1963 and clarified the matter vide Letter: F No 15/5/63-IT (A-I), dated 13 December 1963, which reads as under:- "The Board agree the benefit of section 84 attaches to the undertaking and not to the owner, thereof. The successor will be entitled to the benefit for the unexpired period

ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

80J of Income-tax Act, 1961), way back in 1963 and clarified the matter vide Letter: F No 15/5/63-IT (A-I), dated 13 December 1963, which reads as under:- "The Board agree the benefit of section 84 attaches to the undertaking and not to the owner, thereof. The successor will be entitled to the benefit for the unexpired period

ACC LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT ,RG. 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section existed upto 31-3-1988 and was deleted thereafter): "(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1980 but before the 1st day of April, 1985, a further sum equal to one-half of the amount admissible under clause (ii) (exclusive

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section existed upto 31-3-1988 and was deleted thereafter): "(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1980 but before the 1st day of April, 1985, a further sum equal to one-half of the amount admissible under clause (ii) (exclusive

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) which does not require infrastructure facility to be a public facility for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA. Our attention was also invited to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the assessee company and the railway department which contained conditions for construction of railway sidings, development of sidings, laying of tracks, signaling system

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) was complied with for claiming deductions. Learned AR also invited our attention to the observation of CIT(A) with respect to the freight rate insofar as CIT(A) has wrongly considered the rate for quintals as against per Metric Ton adopted by assessee while computing eligible amount of deduction u/s.80IA (4). It was also contended by learned

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) was complied with for claiming deductions. Learned AR also invited our attention to the observation of CIT(A) with respect to the freight rate insofar as CIT(A) has wrongly considered the rate for quintals as against per Metric Ton adopted by assessee while computing eligible amount of deduction u/s.80IA (4). It was also contended by learned

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act was originally introduced by the finance (no.2) Act, 1980 w.e.f. 1-4-1981 reads thus (the sub-section existed upto 31-3-1988 and was deleted thereafter): "(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been installed after the 31st day of March

ACC LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL CIT ,(LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act was originally introduced by the finance (no.2) Act, 1980 w.e.f. 1-4-1981 reads thus (the sub-section existed upto 31-3-1988 and was deleted thereafter): "(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been installed after the 31st day of March

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 32(1)(iia) inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 and reinserted by Finance Act, 2002 it is evident that the said sections specifically restricted the allowability of additional depreciation in the year of installation of P&M. However, in the section 32(1)(iia) amended vide Finance Act, 2005 Legislature had omitted the proviso wherein it was provided