ULKA SEAFOODS P.LTD,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

11A) constitutes a stand- alone item in the matter of computation of profits. Sections 80-IB and 80-IA are a code by themselves as they contain both substantive as well as procedural provisions. Section 80-IB provides for the allowing of deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the eligible business. The connotation of the words "derived

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation as prescribed under the act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on 31/03/2010 was amounting to 31/03/2010 was amounting to ₹ 84, 77, 564/-. 9.2.1 However during assessment year 2011 However during

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation as prescribed under the act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on 31/03/2010 was amounting to 31/03/2010 was amounting to ₹ 84, 77, 564/-. 9.2.1 However during assessment year 2011 However during

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation as prescribed under the act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on 31/03/2010 was amounting to 31/03/2010 was amounting to ₹ 84, 77, 564/-. 9.2.1 However during assessment year 2011 However during

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation as prescribed under the act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on 31/03/2010 was amounting to 31/03/2010 was amounting to ₹ 84, 77, 564/-. 9.2.1 However during assessment year 2011 However during

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation as prescribed under the act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on 31/03/2010 was amounting to 31/03/2010 was amounting to ₹ 84, 77, 564/-. 9.2.1 However during assessment year 2011 However during

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation as prescribed under the act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on 31/03/2010 was amounting to 31/03/2010 was amounting to ₹ 84, 77, 564/-. 9.2.1 However during assessment year 2011 However during

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation as prescribed under the act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on 31/03/2010 was amounting to 31/03/2010 was amounting to ₹ 84, 77, 564/-. 9.2.1 However during assessment year 2011 However during

ACIT-2(2)(1), MMUMBAI vs. M/S. JICS LOGISTIC LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

depreciation as prescribed under the act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on act. The closing WDV of the assets of the company as on 31/03/2010 was amounting to 31/03/2010 was amounting to ₹ 84, 77, 564/-. 9.2.1 However during assessment year 2011 However during

DCIT 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KILITCH HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

depreciation on goodwill of Rs.2,49,51,468, disallowance of Rs.40,03,820 u/s. 14A and addition of Rs.41,94,79,280 u/s. 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 4. Apropos issue of addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act :- During the course of assessment proceedings the AO observed that the assessee issued 4,20,000 shares

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LYKA LABS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation on the goodwill and the CIT(A) has overlooked the transfer transactions and provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act in deleting the penalty and relied on the order of the A.O. Lyka Labs Ltd., Mumbai. 7. Contra, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) considered the facts, judicial decisions, explanations of the assessee and the assessee

ADIT (E)I(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLIAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

11A of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee is a legal authority and cannot be considered as charitable trust within the meaning of section 11 to 13 of the Act and is engaged commercial activity of development and sale of land. For this Revenue has raised the following ground No. 1 and 2: - “1. That on the facts

ILLIES ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation of Rs.20,22,163/- and unabsorbed business loss of Rs.7,50,72,083/- and total income shown at Rs. zero. Calculation of taxes payable was shown at Rs. NIL and TDS credit of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed and refund due was worked out at Rs.1,50,000/- and schedule 1,2,3,5 and 7 giving breakup

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance (1) with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance (1) with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance (1) with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance (1) with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified