ACIT CC 39, MUMBAI vs. UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, M/S United Liner Agencies Of Cc-6(4), R. No.32(1), India P. Ltd. बनाम/ Ground Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Office Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road No.801, C-Wing, Behind Mumbai-400020 Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacu5182C Shri Narendra Kumar Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Y. P. Trivedi & Usha Dalal

depreciation on these items @60%. This ground of the assessee is allowed. 6. Now only one issue is left which is regarding eligibility or otherwise of the assessee to claim deduction under section 80IA(4

INDIAN EXTRUSIONS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Indian Extrusions Acit-24(3) B-316/317, Virwani Industrial Vs. Mumbai. Estate,Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 063 (Assessee) (Revenue)

section 45(4) of the Act. In the said case of Dynamic Enterprises (supra), the partnership firm was engaged in the business of buying land and properties and construction of buildings thereon. The firm underwent reconstitution. Before such reconstitution the assets of the firm were revalued as per the report of the registered valuer. Three erstwhile partners retired. Retiring partners

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

SUDHIR VRUNDAVANDAS VALIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIR-20(1), MUMBAI

Section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act for the first time for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Vide Purchase Agreement, dated 30/09/2016, the Appellant had purchased the undertaking consisting of three windmills. A copy of the aforesaid purchase agreement was filed during the assessment proceedings for the immediately preceding assessment year, i.e. Assessment Year 2017-18 to establish that

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 801A(4)(i)(b) of the Act as it performs functions akin to state. 41. Applying the text laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Som Prakash Rekhi (supra) as well as the proposition of law laid down by the coordinate bench in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (supra) to the facts

PATEL ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

4) which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— (i) it is not formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence : Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of an undertaking which is formed as a result of the re-establishment, reconstruction or revival by the assessee of the business of any such undertaking

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

4) which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— (i) it is not formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence : Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of an undertaking which is formed as a result of the re-establishment, reconstruction or revival by the assessee of the business of any such undertaking

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.

4) so as to give the Commissioner an occasion to cancel the registration. That is clearly incongruous and could never have been intended by the legislature. 26. Learned counsel further submits that under the scheme of Section 12A, as it then existed and quite in contrast with the scheme of Section 12AA introduced by the Finance Act 1996, there

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

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

4) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 16 of 36 so as to give the Commissioner an occasion to cancel the registration. That is clearly incongruous and could never have been intended by the legislature. 26. Learned counsel further submits that under the scheme of Section 12A, as it then existed and quite in contrast with the scheme of Section 12AA

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

4) so as to give the Commissioner an occasion to cancel the registration. That is clearly incongruous and could never have been intended by the legislature. 26. Learned counsel further submits that under the scheme of Section 12A, as it then existed and quite in contrast with the scheme of Section 12AA introduced by the Finance Act 1996, there

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

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

4) so as to give the Commissioner an occasion to cancel the registration. That is clearly incongruous and could never have been intended by the legislature. 26. Learned counsel further submits that under the scheme of Section 12A, as it then existed and quite in contrast with the scheme of Section 12AA introduced by the Finance Act 1996, there

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

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

4) so as to give the Commissioner an occasion to cancel the registration. That is clearly incongruous and could never have been intended by the legislature. 26. Learned counsel further submits that under the scheme of Section 12A, as it then existed and quite in contrast with the scheme of Section 12AA introduced by the Finance Act 1996, there

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

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

4) so as to give the Commissioner an occasion to cancel the registration. That is clearly incongruous and could never have been intended by the legislature. 26. Learned counsel further submits that under the scheme of Section 12A, as it then existed and quite in contrast with the scheme of Section 12AA introduced by the Finance Act 1996, there