DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

delay is condoned. 2. The first issue in the appeal of the Revenue is regarding disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4) in respect of the projects other than the Teesta Lower Dam project. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submits that the claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4) has been allowed by the Coordinate

NITCO PAINTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

801A(4)(iv) of Income Tax Act, 1961 amount Rs. 54,18,557/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that audit report in form 10CCB duly digitally signed and verified by Nitco Paints Ltd. Auditor through Income Tax E filling portal in which name and membership of auditor

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

delay in filing cross objection is condoned and cross objection is admitted for adjudication. 31. The brief facts of the cross objection filed by the assesee are that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO as to why, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, be not made, the assesee vide

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 801A stipulates development or maintenance of infrastructure facility." 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the relationship between assessee and the government is that of the contractor and the contractee and the assessee has acted as a contractor only

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 801A stipulates development or maintenance of infrastructure facility." 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the relationship between assessee and the government is that of the contractor and the contractee and the assessee has acted as a contractor only

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 22.02.2023 and submitted as under: - “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) 57 in the Assessee's appeal against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). for AY 2007-08, was passed on 30.12.2016 and received by the Assessee

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 22.02.2023 and submitted as under: - “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) 57 in the Assessee's appeal against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). for AY 2007-08, was passed on 30.12.2016 and received by the Assessee

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue\nare dismissed

section 801A stipulates development or\nmaintenance of infrastructure facility.\"\n5. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case\nand in law the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the\nrelationship between assessee and the government is that of\nthe contractor and the contractee and the assessee has\nacted as a contractor only on a specific

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CICLE-8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has raised the additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of revision order as under: 1. The appellant submits that the notice u/s 263 and the consequential order are barred by limitation. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or withdraw

DINDOSHI ONKAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing of first appeal. 3. On merits, after hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and the material placed on record we find that CPC has made adjustment for disallowance of interest claimed u/s.80P despite the fact that no such primafacie adjustment could have been made for disallowing the deduction u/s.80P within

M/S M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 19 days is condoned.\n4. Assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:-\n“1. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in\nrejecting the books of accounts and making an addition

ACIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M B PATIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , MUMBAI

delay of 19 days is condoned.\n4. Assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds:-\n“1. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in\nrejecting the books of accounts and making an addition

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 6(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S CENTURY TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, 6(1)(1) Vs. M/S Century Textiles Room No. 502, 5Th & Industrials Ltd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Century Mk Road, Bhavan, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Beasant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2659Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jogendra Singh.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Chaitanya D. Joshi.Ar Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A), Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The revenue has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal: 1. "whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that market price of power supplied to current unit for captive consumption was correctly adopted by applying the rate at which the State

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

condoned. g. Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the following cases: following cases: i. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

condoned. g. Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the following cases: following cases: i. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

condoned. g. Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the following cases: following cases: i. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

condoned. g. Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the following cases: following cases: i. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

condoned. g. Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the following cases: following cases: i. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT