ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

depreciation and development rebate.\nSection 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research\nand knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under\nagriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved\nuniversities/research institutions or company also qualifies for\ndeduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section.\nSection 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects,\nwhich constitute

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

depreciation and development rebate.\nSection 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research\nand knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under\nagriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved\nuniversities/research institutions or company also qualifies for\ndeduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this Section.\nSection 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects,\nwhich constitute

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

24)(i) to (xviii). The term "resident" is defined in section 2 clause (42) to mean a person who is resident in India within the meaning of section 6. The word "tax" is defined in section 2 clause (43) and in relation to the assessment year commencing on the first day of April, 1965, and any subsequent assessment means income

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

24)(i) to (xviii). The term "resident" is defined in section 2 clause (42) to mean a person who is resident in India within the meaning of section 6. The word "tax" is defined in section 2 clause (43) and in relation to the assessment year commencing on the first day of April, 1965, and any subsequent assessment means income

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

24)(xviii) of the Act, is\neffective from the assessment year 2016-17, as this appeal pertains to the\n assessment year prior thereto, the nature of the subsidy is to be determined as per\nthe purpose test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ld. AO has stated in\nthe assessment order that the subsidy was available

METROPOLITAN STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

xviii) We therefore have no hesitation in holding that the reckoning date qua the impugned notice for the purpose of Section 263(2) of IT Act is not the date of re- assessment being 30.12.2016, but the date of scrutinizing the assessment i.e, 25.02.2015." .....In the instant case, owing to all that have been stated supra, as the impugned notice

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961, profit/loss on sale of assets and disallowance u/s 43B) from its above eligible unit. This very fact has been verified and confirmed by the AO at para 13.8.lof his order. As the refinery is situated inthe Special Economic Zone, company claimed deduction of Rs. 6832,18,56,826/- u/s 10AA

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961, profit/loss on sale of assets and disallowance u/s 43B) from its above eligible unit. This very fact has been verified and confirmed by the AO at para 13.8.lof his order. As the refinery is situated inthe Special Economic Zone, company claimed deduction of Rs. 6832,18,56,826/- u/s 10AA

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961, profit/loss on sale of assets and disallowance u/s 43B) from its above eligible unit. This very fact has been verified and confirmed by the AO at para 13.8.lof his order. As the refinery is situated inthe Special Economic Zone, company claimed deduction of Rs. 6832,18,56,826/- u/s 10AA

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created

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

24) (xviii) with effect from 1/4/2016. Accordingly, we hold that Sales tax incentive money received of Rs 430,61,201/– being the amount retained by the company in accordance with Section 41 of the West Bengal sales tax act, 1944 read with the West Bengal incentive scheme, 1999 was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax under the income

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

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the (c) provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2- Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery

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

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the (c) provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2- Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery

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

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the (c) provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2- Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery

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

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the (c) provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2- Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery