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

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

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

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

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

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

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

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

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

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

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

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

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

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

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

depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” 105. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v/s Godrej Industries

DCIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDILA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1491/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 9(2)(2) Credila Financial Services R.No. 665A, 6 T H Floor, Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, B-301 Citi Point, V. Mumbai-400020 Next To Kohinoor Continental Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400056 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccc8789P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

depreciation relating to earlier years could not be denied. 3. The Assessee may be allowed to carry forward brought forward loss relating to AY 2007-08 to 2009-10 since the provisions of section 79 of IT Act has no application to it. 4. The Assessee may be allowed to carry forward brought forward loss relating

EI BENEFICIARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

253].\nThe AR stated that, though the above decision was rendered in the context of the validity of notice issued under section 271(1)(c), the underlying legal principle regarding the necessity of a valid notice is equally applicable to\n23\nITA No.3230/Mum/2025 & Others\nGovind Corporation & Others\nreassessment proceedings under section 148. Accordingly, the ratio laid down therein squarely applies

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

depreciation on a certain class of asset, or a class of cases, to use the language of section 10(2)(vi), cannot be accepted as a rule made for carrying out the purposes of the Act; indeed, such a rule may be regarded as patently violative of the purposes of the Act, i.e., of section 10(2).” 19. Shri Pardiwala

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

depreciation on a certain class of asset, or a class of cases, to use the language of section 10(2)(vi), cannot be accepted as a rule made for carrying out the purposes of the Act; indeed, such a rule may be regarded as patently violative of the purposes of the Act, i.e., of section 10(2).” 19. Shri Pardiwala

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

253].\n\nThe AR stated that, though the above decision was rendered in the context of the validity of notice issued under section 271(1)(c), the underlying legal principle regarding the necessity of a valid notice is equally applicable to\n\n23\nITA No.3230/Mum/2025 & Others\nGovind Corporation & Others\n\nreassessment proceedings under section 148. Accordingly, the ratio laid down

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) was complied with for claiming deductions. Learned AR also invited our attention to the observation of CIT(A) with respect to the freight rate insofar as CIT(A) has wrongly considered the rate for quintals as against per Metric Ton adopted by assessee while computing eligible amount of deduction u/s.80IA (4). It was also contended by learned

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) was complied with for claiming deductions. Learned AR also invited our attention to the observation of CIT(A) with respect to the freight rate insofar as CIT(A) has wrongly considered the rate for quintals as against per Metric Ton adopted by assessee while computing eligible amount of deduction u/s.80IA (4). It was also contended by learned

EI BENEFICARY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

3230/Mum/2025 Govind

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

253]. The AR stated that, though the above decision was rendered in the context of the validity of notice issued under section 271(1)(c), the underlying legal principle regarding the necessity of a valid notice is equally applicable to reassessment proceedings under section 148. Accordingly, the ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the present case. 33. The learned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. E I RESORTS AND CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

253) clearly applies to the facts of the case at hand and respectfully following the full bench decision of jurisdictional High Court, the notice issued under section 148 is held to be defective. 48.1. The cumulative effect of our findings leads inexorably to the conclusion that both the reassessment proceedings and the resultant assessment orders are unsustainable. The notice under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EI RESORTS & CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

253) clearly applies to the facts of the case at hand and respectfully following the full bench decision of jurisdictional High Court, the notice issued under section 148 is held to be defective. 48.1. The cumulative effect of our findings leads inexorably to the conclusion that both the reassessment proceedings and the resultant assessment orders are unsustainable. The notice under