PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGINE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 801B INR 10,81,22,810/- We note that while the case set up by the Assessee is that old plant and machinery was used it was less than 20%, Form 10CCB states that the undertaking had not received by way of transfer any plant and machinery previously used. 6.10. On perusal of Depreciation

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

801B(9) deduction to the extent of Rs. 15,26,13,821/- (20.97 % of Rs. 72,77,72, 160/-). It is pertinent to note that non allowing additional depreciation during tax holiday period not only result in higher claim of deduction but also result in higher carry forward of WDV which would reduce the profitability of the assess after

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

Appeals are partly allowed

Section 801B of the Act separately and independently, and while doing so the Assessee had also deducted employees cost, depreciation

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

Appeals are partly allowed

Section 801B of the Act separately and independently, and while doing so the Assessee had also deducted employees cost, depreciation

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

depreciation has been allowed on the\namount capitalized and over a period of time it has no revenue impact.\n12.2 In view of above, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn.\n13. Ground No. 11: Disallowance in respect of employer's\ncontribution to ESIC under section 43B: Rs. 31,739/-.\n13.1 The Ld. AR has submitted as under

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

depreciation has been allowed on the\namount capitalized and over a period of time it has no revenue impact.\n12.2 In view of above, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn.\n13. Ground No. 11: Disallowance in respect of employer's\ncontribution to ESIC under section 43B: Rs. 31,739/-.\n13.1 The Ld. AR has submitted as under

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

depreciation has been allowed on the\namount capitalized and over a period of time it has no revenue impact.\n12.2 In view of above, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn.\n13. Ground No. 11: Disallowance in respect of employer's\ncontribution to ESIC under section 43B: Rs. 31,739/-.\n13.1 The Ld. AR has submitted as under

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGINE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Garden Silk Weaving Factory (279 ITR 136), after considering the decision of the Supreme court in the above named two cases

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Garden Silk Weaving Factory (279 ITR 136), after considering the decision of the Supreme court in the above named two cases

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. CIR. 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Garden Silk Weaving Factory (279 ITR 136), after considering the decision of the Supreme court in the above named two cases

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGINENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Garden Silk Weaving Factory (279 ITR 136), after considering the decision of the Supreme court in the above named two cases

ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Garden Silk Weaving Factory (279 ITR 136), after considering the decision of the Supreme court in the above named two cases

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation had been allowed, it could not be said that the balance was the excess amount between the price and WDV". In this connection the High Court of Gujarat has, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Garden Silk Weaving Factory (279 ITR 136), after considering the decision of the Supreme court in the above named two cases

EVERSHINE DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Evershine Developers Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 215, Veena Beena Shopping Centre, Central Circle 2(4) Vs. Opp. Bandra Station, Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabfe 6729 P (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shrirohit Golecha Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Ramachandran Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

section 801B(10) of the Act being write back of sundry creditors pertaining to eligible housing project. The reasons assigned by him for doing the same are wrong and insufficient. 2) The below grounds are without prejudice to each other, 2 Evershine Developers vs. Dy. CIT a) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801B of the Act - Piparia (Silvassa Unit) Both the CIT (A) and the AO erred in not considering income of Rs.4,19,430/- being sale of empty containers as profit of industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80IB. The appellant submits that the sales of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801B of the Act - Piparia (Silvassa Unit) Both the CIT (A) and the AO erred in not considering income of Rs.4,19,430/- being sale of empty containers as profit of industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80IB. The appellant submits that the sales of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801B of the Act - Piparia (Silvassa Unit) Both the CIT (A) and the AO erred in not considering income of Rs.4,19,430/- being sale of empty containers as profit of industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80IB. The appellant submits that the sales of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801B of the Act - Piparia (Silvassa Unit) Both the CIT (A) and the AO erred in not considering income of Rs.4,19,430/- being sale of empty containers as profit of industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80IB. The appellant submits that the sales of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business