VINATI OPRGANICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for the statistical purpose and that of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowance of deduction under section 10B on various receipts; and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on various payments made

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

disallowance, entertainment of expenses, donation interest accrued but not due depreciation etc. He has arrived at a figure of Rs. 11,17,87,315. He has claimed the entire amount as an exemption under section 10B

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 10B. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said amount for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 10B. The CIT(A) upheld

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

section 10B. The Assessing\nOfficer disallowed the said amount for the purpose of claiming exemption\nunder section 10B. The CIT(A) upheld

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

section 10B. The Assessing\nOfficer disallowed the said amount for the purpose of claiming exemption\nunder section 10B. The CIT(A) upheld

ITO 1(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. EVERYDAY HEALTH INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2936/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

disallowed as it is noticed that your unit was set up in May 2008 whereas the application for registration of new STP unit for the purpose of claim u/s 10B was made on 8.9.2009 which shows that the business was already in existence prior to the setting up of new unit. Hence it violates the condition laid down

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

10B or section 10BA and section 80H to 80VV. The action of CPC restricting the deduction under section 80JJAAto action of CPC restricting the deduction under section 80JJAAto action of CPC restricting the deduction under section 80JJAAto the business income of Rs 6,22,44,207/ s income of Rs 6,22,44,207/- is correct

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowing the same from 10B units and non 10B units on the basis of actual rent paid.” 31. Briefly stated facts are that the AO and DRP has considered that the sum of ₹ 1,26,05,528/- being rental expenditure claimed by assessee and rent paid to related parties is unreasonable in term of section

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance of deduction under section 10B, disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB), disallowance of premium on FCCB and disallowance

MAXVAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,BELAPUR vs. ITO WD 3, PANVEL, RAIGAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act for both the assessment years. Being aggrieved of the disallowance

SULPHUR MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

disallowed by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a) of the Act of Rs.2,83,264/- has not been considered while computing the profits eligible for deduction under section 10B

SULPHUR MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

disallowed by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a) of the Act of Rs.2,83,264/- has not been considered while computing the profits eligible for deduction under section 10B

SYSCOM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 43 I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 M/s Syscom Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 10B with respect to the aforesaid three elements of income on the ground that such incomes do not constitute a first degree profit of the 100% EOU. On appeal, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT held that the provisions of section

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowance only up to the first day of April, 2001, and granting the benefit, of those provisions even in respect of units to which sections 10A and 10B

DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. VIVEK MEHROTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowed by the AO in assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 and 2012-13 as well. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee’s claim of deduction. Being aggrieved, the revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. While deciding revenues appeals in ITA No. 2173, 2174 and 2175/Mum/2018 dated 27.05.2020, the Tribunal upheld the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) observing

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on account of global overhead charges of Rs. 1,31,15,947 should be deleted. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,56,43,551 made by learned Assessing Officer (AO)/ Transfer Pricing Officer (IPO) and further erred in enhancing the addition

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. MAJMUDAR & CO., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

section 10B of the Income Tax Act. Based on the above reasoning, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. MAJMUDAR & CO., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

section 10B of the Income Tax Act. Based on the above reasoning, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. MAJMUDAR & CO., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 3063 To 3067/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year‟S: 2004-05 To 2008-09) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 11(3), Mumbai .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co., 601/604, Naman Centre, A Wing, G-31, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai - 400028. .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.P. Singh, Dr Respondent B: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ar Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2016 Order Per Mahavir Singh: These Six Appeals By Revenue Are Arising Out Of Different Orders Of Cit (A) In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/376 To 379/2010-11 For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2005-06 & 2008-09 Vide Order Of Common Date 07-02-2012, In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/382/2009-10 Dated 07-02-2012 & In Appeal No.Cit (A)-2/It/210/2011-12 Order Dated 23- 08-2012. Assessments Were Framed By The Acit-11 (3), Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2004-05 To 2009-10 Vide His Orders Of Different Dates Acit Vs. M/S. Majmudar & Co. U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

section 10B of the Income Tax Act. Based on the above reasoning, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee