ASST CIT CIR 11(5) vs. JSW STEEL LTD,

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

115J is to tax such companies which are making huge profits and also declaring substantial dividends but are managing their affairs in such a way as to avoid payment of income-tax, as a result of various tax concessions and incentives and for that purpose, the taxable income is determined under sub-section (1) of section 115 J. An assessee

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

115J is to tax such companies which are making huge profits and also declaring substantial dividends but are managing their affairs in such a way as to avoid payment of income-tax, as a result of various tax concessions and incentives and for that purpose, the taxable income is determined under sub-section (1) of section 115 J. An assessee

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, ground “A” raised in the appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

depreciation is nil; or (iv) to (vi) [***] 11 M/s. Rockline Developers Pvt. Ltd. (vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing on and from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Sick Industrial

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not chargeable with respect to tax liability determined under minimum alternate tax (MAT)?” ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023 A.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. 12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court as noted by us are as under: “32. This brings

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not chargeable with respect to tax liability determined under minimum alternate tax (MAT)?” ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023 A.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. 12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court as noted by us are as under: “32. This brings

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

115J vide Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 01.04.1988, and later substituted by section 115JA of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.1997. Under both these sections, the above clauses (ii) and clause (f) of section 115JB of the Act did find mention in the Explanation to that sections inasmuch as while computing adjusted book profit, exempt income credited to the profit and loss account

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

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

depreciation did not lead to tax evasion and, hence, no penalty could be levied.\nIn this case, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has held as under:\n\"... The High Court, while dealing with the penalty under section 271(1)(c), in CIT v. Aleo Manali Hydro Power (P) Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 288/219 Taxman

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not\nchargeable with respect to tax liability determined under\nminimum alternate tax (MAT)?\"\n12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court as noted by us\nare as under:\n\"32. This brings us to the second question which deals with\ncharging of interest under sections 234B and 234C when

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are\npartly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not\nchargeable with respect to tax liability determined under\nminimum alternate tax (MAT)?\"\n61\nITA No.1172, 1175 & 1176/M/2023\nITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023\nA.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13\nM/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd.\n12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court as noted by us\nare as under

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 is to tax such companies which are making huge profits and also declaring substantial dividends but are managing their affairs in such a way as to avoid payment of income-tax, as a result of various tax concessions and incentives and for that purpose, the taxable income is determined under sub-section (1) of section 115 J. An assessee

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

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

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

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

115J of the Act, as it defies the basic intention behind introduction of provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The ITAT JSW Steel Limited Jaipur bench, in case of ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd, had considered an identical issue and held that incentives granted to the assesee is capital receipt and hence, cannot be part of book profit computed

DCB BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

1) of the Act, whereas in assessee’s case the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, therefore, it is not applicable. However, he submitted that the issue is not about how the assessment was completed, but whether the issue involved under consideration is debatable or not. However, he submitted that with regard to the issue

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