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

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 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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after all the machines

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after all the machines

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

4 SOT 276 Profit on sale of 3.2 12 M/s. Reliance Industries limited depreciable asset which was not taxable due to purchase of another depreciable asset as provided in Section 50 13 Mcnally Bharat Kolkata ITAT 100/Kol/2011 Retention money 41 to 43 Engineering Co. Ltd. 14 Delhi Gymkhana Delhi ITAT 3585/Del/2006 Income exempt as per 13 Club Ltd. doctrine

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

255 ITR 26 (Guj). These decisions suggest for accepting the valuation report furnished by the assessee and depreciation should be granted on the enhanced cost of the asset. 9. Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the fact that the CIT (A) erroneously invoked the 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, when such proviso

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , KALYAN vs. M/S ASB INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO stated that from A.Y. 2001-02 onward the provisions of section10A of and 10B of the Act have been brought at per with the other section dealing with deductions allowed under chapters VI-A of the Act. From first April 2001 onwards the brought forward losses pertaining to the specified undertaking

DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. DEEGEE ORCHARDS P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

4 SOT 276 Profit on sale of 3.2 depreciable asset which was not taxable due to purchase of another depreciable asset as provided in Section 50 13 Mcnally Bharat Kolkata ITAT 100/Kol/2011 Retention money 41 to 43 14 Delhi Gymkhana Delhi ITAT 3585/Del/2006 Income exempt as per 13 Club Ltd. doctrine of mutuality 15 Goldgerg Finance Mumbai ITAT 7496/Mum/2013 Share

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

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

ASST CIT CIRCLE-11 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHREE PUSHKAR CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

255 ITR 273 and Rain Commodities Ltd. vs. DCIT 41 DTR 449. Also very recently, Madras HC in the case of Metal & Chromium Plater (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 359 of 2008) has also decided the said issue in the favour of the assessee. The case of Krishi Rasayan Exports Put. Ltd. us. ACIT (ITA No. 883 /Kol./2014

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’): “(a) Whether cost of shares allotted to members of Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) pursuant to its corporatisation/de-mutualisation would be calculated as per section 50 or section 55(2)(ab) if depreciation

ASST CIT CEN CIR 25, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

depreciation to the plant until it is "Taken over". (Page 168)  It shall employ experienced personnel for Operation and Maintenance of the project. (Page 173)  It shall obtain and maintain Industrial All Risk Insurance for the project providing full coverage on replacement value basis during the period of Operation and Maintenance. (Page 174)  It has paid Earnest money deposit, which