GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

251 ITR 401) held that loss arising on the export of trading goods is required to be adjusted against the profit on the export of manufactured goods and deduction under section 80HHC is to be allowed on the net amount. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved

FREE INDIA ASSURANCE SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaindcit, Circle - 6(2) M/S. Free India Assurance Room No. 563, 5Th Floor Services Ltd. Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf3879K Appellant Respondent M/S. Free India Assurance Acit, Circle - 6(2) Services Ltd. 5Th Floor, Àayakar Bhavan 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf3879K Appellant Respondent

depreciation, reserves for shipping business, rehabilitation fund, expenditure on certain eligible objects or schemes, deductions, amounts not deductible, profits chargeable to tax, etc. The assessee is no doubt correct in contending that the only definition of 'derivatives' is to be found in section 43(5), yet the Court cannot ignore or overlook that the definition to the extent it excludes

DCIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI vs. FREE INDIA ASSURANCE SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaindcit, Circle - 6(2) M/S. Free India Assurance Room No. 563, 5Th Floor Services Ltd. Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf3879K Appellant Respondent M/S. Free India Assurance Acit, Circle - 6(2) Services Ltd. 5Th Floor, Àayakar Bhavan 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf3879K Appellant Respondent

depreciation, reserves for shipping business, rehabilitation fund, expenditure on certain eligible objects or schemes, deductions, amounts not deductible, profits chargeable to tax, etc. The assessee is no doubt correct in contending that the only definition of 'derivatives' is to be found in section 43(5), yet the Court cannot ignore or overlook that the definition to the extent it excludes

ETERNIS FINE CHEMICALS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy. Sassessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Eternis Fine Chemicals Ltd., The Cit(Appeals), B 1004, Peninsula Tower, Nfac, Peninsula Corporate Park, Mumbai. G.K.Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400 013. [Pan: Aaach 3757 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation amounting to Rs. 42,30,341/- and addition made by the Ld. AO ought to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or rescind any grounds of appeal during the A course of the hearing. 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: the assessee is into manufacturing

HIRANANDANI INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Hiranandani Industrial Enterprises, The Assistant Commissioner Of 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, F P J Vs. Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Room No. 117, Aayakar Bhavan, 400021 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaafh1372E Appellant Respondent

depreciable and accordingly, the AO was right in invoking section 50C of the Act. Hiranandini Industrial Enterprises 4 Observing that section 50 r.w.s. 50C outlines that sale value/deemed value is to be reduced inter alia by WDV of the transferred asset, the Ld. CIT(A) found the computation done by the AO to be in accordance with the method prescribed

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

251/- for asset given on lease to the book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act ignoring the fact that the Ld. CIT (A) had not decided the appeal on merit? 2.1 The grounds raised by the assessee in its cross-objection are reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW JAIGARH PORT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-5(2)(1), Jsw Jaigarh Port Ltd., 5Th Floor, R.N. 571, 5Th Floor, Jsw Centre, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcj 7959 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271. of penalty under section 271.” 6.1 Before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that due to submitted that due to time taken for photocopying of time taken for photocopying of voluminous records of voluminous records of bills and vouchers containing containing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI vs. JSW JAIGARH PORT LIMITED, BANDRA(EAST)

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-5(2)(1), Jsw Jaigarh Port Ltd., 5Th Floor, R.N. 571, 5Th Floor, Jsw Centre, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcj 7959 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271. of penalty under section 271.” 6.1 Before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that due to submitted that due to time taken for photocopying of time taken for photocopying of voluminous records of voluminous records of bills and vouchers containing containing

M/S HYDRO AIR RECTONICS (PCD) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 2 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Hydro Air Tectonics (Pcd) Dcit, Central Circle 2(1) Limited, 301/302, Belapur Vs. 8Th Floor, Room No. 804, Old Concorde Premises Chs, Cgo Building, Pratishtha Plot No. 66A, Sector- 44, Behind Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vijaya Bank, Cbd, Belapur, Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 614 Pan No. Aaach9686C (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2021

Depreciation 7,09,96,109 Disallowance u/s 14A 53,66,997 Dividend 5,000 Penalty 35,688 8,49,66,338 Total 3,00,63,976 Rounded off 3,00,63,980 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O u/s 144, dated 10.02.2016 before the CIT(A). However, as the assessee failed to appear before

ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

depreciation. Thus ground no.2 of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 17. The assessee had claimed the deduction u/s.80IA on power generation undertaking by adopting price which the industrial consumers paid during the year under consideration for electricity purchased from State Power Distribution Agency. However, the Assessing Officer has restricted the claim of deduction u/s.80IA to Rs.34

M. PALLONJI & CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. JT, CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

ACIT - 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR ENGINEERING & ELECTRONICS LTD. (FORMERLY BLUE STAR ELECTRO MECHANICAL LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5242/Mum/2017 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Blue Star Engineering & Income Tax-1(1)(1), Electronics Ltd. 579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. (Formerly M/S Blue Star Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Electro Mechanical Limited) Kasturi Building, Mohan T. Vs. Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaecb1558M

depreciation of the assessee and confirm the order of CIT(A). 11. The next issue in ITA No. 6412/Mum/2016 for AY 2011-12 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground No. iii: - “iii. Whether

THE DY CIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOUROUS LTD., MUMBAI

depreciation has been allowed on the\namount capitalized and over a period of time it has no revenue impact.\n12.2 In view of above, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn.\n13. Ground No. 11: Disallowance in respect of employer's\ncontribution to ESIC under section 43B: Rs. 31,739/-.\n13.1 The Ld. AR has submitted as under

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

251 Thus it was observed by the AO, it can be seen from the above that from the assessment year 1997-98 onwards the assessee company had unabsorbed depreciation in respect of Jojobera 67.5 MW power generating unit for the assessment year 1997-98 and 1998-99. However, after set off of unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years against the income

TATA MOTERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIR..-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Tata Motors Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Tata Income Tax-2(1), Engineering & Locomotive Aayakar Bhavan Company Limited M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 Bombay House, 24 020 Homi Mody Street Hutatma Chowk Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Limited Income Tax-2(1), (Formerly Known As Tata Aayakar Bhavan Engineering & Locomotive M.K. Marg, Mumbai – Company Limited 400 020 Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street Hutatma Chowk Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

depreciation was ever claimed by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the contentions of the ld. AO, but however, found merit in the alternative submissions made by the assessee before him and directed the ld. AO to treat the said loss as capital loss u/s.45 of the Act. 3.4. Aggrieved, both assessee as well as revenue is in appeal

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN. CIR. - 38, MUMBAI

depreciation has been allowed on the\namount capitalized and over a period of time it has no revenue impact.\n12.2 In view of above, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn.\n13. Ground No. 11: Disallowance in respect of employer's\ncontribution to ESIC under section 43B: Rs. 31,739/-.\n13.1 The Ld. AR has submitted as under

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

depreciation has been allowed on the\namount capitalized and over a period of time it has no revenue impact.\n12.2 In view of above, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn.\n13. Ground No. 11: Disallowance in respect of employer's\ncontribution to ESIC under section 43B: Rs. 31,739/-.\n13.1 The Ld. AR has submitted as under

KEVA FRGRANCES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 4 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

251,18,95,121/- made by the AO under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is hereby deleted. The concerned ground is allowed.” 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The undisputed facts are that the assessee is a subsidiary company of a company SHK which is listed on the stock exchange

CLASSIC STRIPES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Classic Stripes Pvt. Vs. Dcit 6(2) Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan Astarc House, 76/79, Mumbai Makwana Lane, Takpada Marol, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 069 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc5076F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

depreciation on goodwill was denied by ld. Assessing Officer, however, ld. CIT(A) allowed assessee's claim by following the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra). 36. Further, we also observe that the main reason for denial of deduction by ld. Assessing Officer was that assessee has not filed revised return