ADDL CIT CEN CIR IX, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

1), therefore, has no application unless the asset is acquired and the liability existed, before the change in the rate of exchange takes effect. In such a case, Section 43A contemplates recomputation of the cost of the assets for the purposes of depreciation

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

EVEREST INDUSTIRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RG 1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

section 43A of the Act. Learned Departmental Representative also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of Bangalore International Airport Ltd. (ITA No. 510/Bang/2014 dated 27.9.2016), wherein it was held that adjustment on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation is required to be made to actual cost. 49. We have heard

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not chargeable with respect to tax liability determined under minimum alternate tax (MAT)?” ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023 A.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. 12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court as noted by us are as under: “32. This brings

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not chargeable with respect to tax liability determined under minimum alternate tax (MAT)?” ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023 A.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. 12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court as noted by us are as under: “32. This brings

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

43A of the Act or Rule 115 of Income-tax Rules, 1962, as the case may be.\nFinancial Statements of Foreign Operations\n7. The financial statements of a foreign operation shall be translated using the\nprinciples and procedures in paragraphs 3 to 6 as if the transactions of the foreign\noperation had been those of the person himself\"\n6.2

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

43A of the Act or Rule 115 of Income-tax Rules, 1962, as the case may be.\nFinancial Statements of Foreign Operations\n7. The financial statements of a foreign operation shall be translated using the\nprinciples and procedures in paragraphs 3 to 6 as if the transactions of the foreign\noperation had been those of the person himself\"\n6.2

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how and section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure on eligible projects or schemes and section 35AD deals with deduction

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how and section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure on eligible projects or schemes and section 35AD deals with deduction

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

43A of the Act or Rule 115 of Income-tax Rules, 1962, as the case may be.\nFinancial Statements of Foreign Operations\n7. The financial statements of a foreign operation shall be translated using the\nprinciples and procedures in paragraphs 3 to 6 as if the transactions of the foreign\noperation had been those of the person himself\"\n6.2

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

43A of the Act or Rule 115 of Income-tax Rules, 1962, as the case may be.\nFinancial Statements of Foreign Operations\n7. The financial statements of a foreign operation shall be translated using the\nprinciples and procedures in paragraphs 3 to 6 as if the transactions of the foreign\noperation had been those of the person himself\"\nPage

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not\nchargeable with respect to tax liability determined under\nminimum alternate tax (MAT)?\"\n12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court as noted by us\nare as under:\n\"32. This brings us to the second question which deals with\ncharging of interest under sections 234B and 234C when

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are\npartly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not\nchargeable with respect to tax liability determined under\nminimum alternate tax (MAT)?\"\n61\nITA No.1172, 1175 & 1176/M/2023\nITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023\nA.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13\nM/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd.\n12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court as noted by us\nare as under

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

43A, which included section 32(2). Therefore, one cannot exclude depreciation allowance while computing profits derived from a newly established undertaking for computing deductions under Chapter VI-A. Therefore, the appellant’s claim for allowance of deduction under section 80HH, without taking into consideration the current depreciation will have to be rejected." (p. 107) 14. All these judgments would support

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

1 of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. 23. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A), taking - note of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT V s. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait in ITA No.4404 and 1883/Mum/2004 dated

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

1 of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. 23. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A), taking - note of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT V s. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait in ITA No.4404 and 1883/Mum/2004 dated

DCIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

depreciation. In the return of income, the Assessee did\nnot claim deduction for the year end ERV in so far as it related to\nliability to repay the principal amount of loan taken by the Assessee\nin the form of External Commercial Borrowings (ECBs). By way of\nAdditional Ground No. 1, the Assessee has claimed deduction for the\nyear