RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

801A by arriving at the ALP applying Chapter X? (Included in 7) 14. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.‖ 33. The issue arising in ground No. 1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, is pertaining to reducing the depreciation by reworking

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

801A by arriving at the ALP applying Chapter X? (Included in 7) 14. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.‖ 33. The issue arising in ground No. 1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, is pertaining to reducing the depreciation by reworking

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)

801A in accordance with this clarification and after being satisfied that all the prescribed conditions applicable in a particular case are duly satisfied. Pending litigation on allowability of deduction u/s 80 IA shall also not be pursued to the extent it relates to interpreting ‘initial assessment year’ as mentioned in SubSection (5) of that section for which the Standing Counsel/DRs

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3) of the Act, disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.33,33,614, incurred due to conversion at the exchange rate on 31/03/2003. Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, following the decisions of his predecessor–in–office rendered in assessee‟s own case

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

section 143(3) of the Act, disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.33,33,614, incurred due to conversion at the exchange rate on 31/03/2003. Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, following the decisions of his predecessor–in–office rendered in assessee‟s own case

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

depreciation pertaining to the windmill, which were set off in the earlier year against other business income of the assessee following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (340 ITR 477), when the same is pending appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP.Civil No.33475 of 2012 ? (2) Whether under the facts and circumstances

THE ACIT CC-35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation relating to the assets installed at the corporate office, as discussed earlier these costs are not directly relating to the operation of eligible units. As per the provisions of section 801A

M/S. MARICO LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-35, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation relating to the assets installed at the corporate office, as discussed earlier these costs are not directly relating to the operation of eligible units. As per the provisions of section 801A

MARICO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR-35,, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation relating to the assets installed at the corporate office, as discussed earlier these costs are not directly relating to the operation of eligible units. As per the provisions of section 801A

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Depreciation of Head Office (INR 12,65,20,024/-) and Interest Expenses (INR 85,97,604/-). Accordingly, we set aside the reallocation of expenses made by the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer recomputed deduction under Section 80IB of the Act accordingly. 9. Ground No. VI I.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction made by the ACIT

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Depreciation of Head Office (INR 12,65,20,024/-) and Interest Expenses (INR 85,97,604/-). Accordingly, we set aside the reallocation of expenses made by the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer recomputed deduction under Section 80IB of the Act accordingly. 9. Ground No. VI I.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction made by the ACIT

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 80-IA(4) of the Act set the matter beyond any controversy by stipulating that the three conditions for development, operation and maintenance were not intended to be cumulative in nature. (Emphasis supplied) 27. As regards the decision in The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (ITA 5172/Mum/2008) cited by the AO, based on the facts of that case

JSW STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

depreciation etc in respect of the said infrastructure facility before allowing deduction under the Act. Hence, there is no error committed by the Ld AO to hold the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this account. 27. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that, it is pertinent to note that in the show cause notice

JSW STEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

depreciation etc in respect of the said infrastructure facility before allowing deduction under the Act. Hence, there is no error committed by the Ld AO to hold the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this account. 27. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that, it is pertinent to note that in the show cause notice

JSW STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

depreciation etc in respect of the said infrastructure facility before allowing deduction under the Act. Hence, there is no error committed by the Ld AO to hold the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this account. 27. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that, it is pertinent to note that in the show cause notice

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

depreciation etc in respect of the said infrastructure facility before allowing deduction under the Act. Hence, there is no error committed by the Ld AO to hold the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this account. 27. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that, it is pertinent to note that in the show cause notice

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

depreciation or not has no bearing in determining the\nquantum of deduction allowable under section 801A, as the depreciation has to be\nallowed

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

depreciation or not has no bearing in determining the\nquantum of deduction allowable under section 801A, as the depreciation has to be\nallowed