ACIT CENTRAL CIR6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARIANA INFRASTRUCTURTE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Mariana Infrastructure Of Income Tax, Central Limited, M-62 &63, Circle -6(4) 1St Floor, Connaught Room No. 1925, 19Th Place, New Delhi Floor, Air India Building, 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafcm2619H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ajay Chandra Respondent By : K. Gopal Date Of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Claim Of Deduction Of Revenue Of Cancelled Transaction Of Rs.27,78,65,132/- Cancelled In Subsequent Year From The Book Profit Though Section 115Jb Is A Self-Contained Code Where Even The Additions & Deductions From The Book Profit Are Specified The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Des Not Allow Any Such Deductions?."

depreciation, which had not been charged to profit and loss account but had been disclosed in notes appended to accounts, would be deducted from net profit in determining book profit for purpose of section 115J

M/S. ACC LTD ( FORMELY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMEMTN COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

115J.” 14.7.4. In the present case the books of accounts have been accepted by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Assessing Officer only has limited power to increase/decrease of book profits in terms of Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. Provision for Technical Fees, Royalty and Interest is not a provision made for unascertained liability and does not fall

THE ACIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO., MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

115J.” 14.7.4. In the present case the books of accounts have been accepted by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the Assessing Officer only has limited power to increase/decrease of book profits in terms of Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. Provision for Technical Fees, Royalty and Interest is not a provision made for unascertained liability and does not fall

TECNIMONT ICB PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT,CIRCLE 9(3), MUMBAI

depreciation. As a consequence of the aforesaid, exclusion of income net of expenses relatable to units eligible for deduction u/s. 10BA/10BB of the Act has been taken by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 9,825.14 lakhs as against Rs. 13,343.61 lakhs excluded by the appellant. The action of the Assessing Officer is contrary to the scheme of section 115JB

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

115J of the Act, it claimed the amount of depreciation as deduction from the net profit disclosed in the profit and loss account. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court in respect of the said controversy was as under: "The answer to this poser is found in sub-section

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

depreciation relatable to the steel purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

depreciation relatable to the steel purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

depreciation relatable to the steel purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

depreciation relatable to the steel purchases claimed by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee in both the years are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 raised by the assessee in both the years relate to disallowance under section 14A, r.w. Rule 8D of I T Rules. 7.1 The details relating

ZAINUL ABEDIN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

depreciation thereon. So too 50% share in the property in the wealth tax thereon. So too 50% share in the property in the wealth tax thereon. So too 50% share in the property in the wealth tax proceedings is offered by the assessee and her husband. eedings is offered by the assessee and her husband. eedings is offered

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

115J and 115JB that the question whether a company which is liable to pay tax under either provisions does not receive importance because specific provisions are made in the section saying that all other provisions of the Act so apply to MAT copy under Section 115(A) and 115JB(5). Respectfully following the proposition declared by the Hon'ble Supreme

ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

115J and 115JB that the question whether a company which is liable to pay tax under either provisions does not receive importance because specific provisions are made in the section saying that all other provisions of the Act so apply to MAT copy under Section 115(A) and 115JB(5). Respectfully following the proposition declared by the Hon'ble Supreme

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CC-46, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation. Since the issue involved is similar to one as decided by us in ground No.9 in ITA No.4632/Mum/2017 of Revenue’s appeal. Therefore, our decision/finding in the above ground would mutatis mutandis apply to ground No.12 in Revenue’s appeal. Accordingly, ground No.12 of Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 8.6 The issue raised in ground No.13 in Revenue

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation. Since the issue involved is similar to one as decided by us in ground No.9 in ITA No.4632/Mum/2017 of Revenue’s appeal. Therefore, our decision/finding in the above ground would mutatis mutandis apply to ground No.12 in Revenue’s appeal. Accordingly, ground No.12 of Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 8.6 The issue raised in ground No.13 in Revenue

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation. Since the issue involved is similar to one as decided by us in ground No.9 in ITA No.4632/Mum/2017 of Revenue’s appeal. Therefore, our decision/finding in the above ground would mutatis mutandis apply to ground No.12 in Revenue’s appeal. Accordingly, ground No.12 of Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 8.6 The issue raised in ground No.13 in Revenue

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation. Since the issue involved is similar to one as decided by us in ground No.9 in ITA No.4632/Mum/2017 of Revenue’s appeal. Therefore, our decision/finding in the above ground would mutatis mutandis apply to ground No.12 in Revenue’s appeal. Accordingly, ground No.12 of Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 8.6 The issue raised in ground No.13 in Revenue

DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation. Since the issue involved is similar to one as decided by us in ground No.9 in ITA No.4632/Mum/2017 of Revenue’s appeal. Therefore, our decision/finding in the above ground would mutatis mutandis apply to ground No.12 in Revenue’s appeal. Accordingly, ground No.12 of Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 8.6 The issue raised in ground No.13 in Revenue

DCIT CC 8(3)(ERSTWHILE DCIT,CC-46, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEELS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation. Since the issue involved is similar to one as decided by us in ground No.9 in ITA No.4632/Mum/2017 of Revenue’s appeal. Therefore, our decision/finding in the above ground would mutatis mutandis apply to ground No.12 in Revenue’s appeal. Accordingly, ground No.12 of Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 8.6 The issue raised in ground No.13 in Revenue