DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12

NAVAJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Page 2 Of 47 1 A) The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17 ('Pcit') Under Section 12Aa(3)/(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Ita') Cancelling The Registration Of The Appellant Is Without Jurisdiction And, Hence, Void Ab Initio.

12 A is a registration which is the nature of benefit as it is a foundational requirement for the exemption under section 11. It is thus meant to be a beneficial scheme for the taxation of trusts. A benefit cannot be thrust upon an unwilling person, particularly when what is perceived and claimed to be a benefit turns

R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 11. It is thus meant to be a beneficial scheme for the taxation of trusts. A benefit cannot be thrust upon an unwilling person, particularly when what is perceived and claimed to be a benefit turns out to be a liability. Learned counsel submits that a benefit, right or privilege Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 12 of 36 cannot

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust, and, for this reason, what is held in the case of Mahendra Mills (supra) would not be applicable in the present context. 30. It is then contended that while the assessee has an option to claim or not to claim the benefit of Section

JAMSETJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

12 A is a registration which is the nature of benefit as it is a foundational requirement for the exemption under section 11. It is thus meant to be a beneficial scheme for the taxation of trusts. A benefit cannot be thrust upon an unwilling person, particularly when what is perceived and claimed to be a benefit turns

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust, and, for this reason, what is held in the case of Mahendra Mills (supra) would not be applicable in the present context. 30. It is then contended that while the assessee has an option to claim or not to claim the benefit of Section

SARVAJANIK SEVA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust, and, for this reason, what is held in the case of Mahendra Mills (supra) would not be applicable in the present context. 30. It is then contended that while the assessee has an option to claim or not to claim the benefit of Section

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

depreciable asset under Section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction created under Section 50. Section 54E specifically provides that where capital gain arising on transfer of a long term capital asset is invested or deposited (whole or any part of the net consideration) in the specified assets, the assessee shall not be charged to capital gains. Therefore

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12. A plain reading of the above terms makes it clear that amount claimed as deduction is toward M/s Rewa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. agreeing to cancel the Agreement for Cooperation for Additional Development, withdraw the suit and to give up the rights and title of the 4 flats. It is also clear that the amount claimed as deduction

DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation as application of income and non-granting of set off- of and carry forward of deficit is concerned, the same are also allowed in principle following our decision in the earlier paras holding the assessee 25 Matunga Gymkhana eligible for exemption under sections 11& 12

MATUNGA GYMKHANA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) -I-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation as application of income and non-granting of set off- of and carry forward of deficit is concerned, the same are also allowed in principle following our decision in the earlier paras holding the assessee 25 Matunga Gymkhana eligible for exemption under sections 11& 12