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

2) should be made in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed. 7. In ground No.2, the assessee has challenge the disallowance under section 10B

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)

2) of section 33 and sub-section (4) of section 35 of the Act or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub- section (1) of section 36 shall not be applicable in relation to any such allowance or deduction. Similarly, no loss as referred to in sub-section (1) or in section 72 or sub-section (1) or subsection

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. ()

2) (3) Restoring the 14A disallowance to AO and directing to re-compute the disallowance as per immediate preceding year.(Ground 3) (4) Allowing the claim of deduction u/s 10B for Pune and Kidderpore Units.(Grounds 4 - 4.1) I.T.A. No.5431/Mum/2011 – Assessee's appeal Disallowance of travelling expenditure – Ground 1 3. This ground pertains to disallowance of travelling expenditure relating

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

2 (45) of the IT Act and it means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Income-tax Act,1961. 2.11. In computing the total income of the assessee both profits as well as losses will have to be taken into consideration. Section 80-AB is relevant. It reads

JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

disallowing amounts amounts amounts accumulated under Section 11 (1 )(a), Section 11(2), and capital accumulated under Section 11 (1 )(a), Section 11(2), and capital accumulated under Section 11 (1 )(a), Section 11(2), and capital expenditure claimed as income application, due to the late filing expenditure claimed as income application, due to the late filing expenditure claimed

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

2. Ground no.3 of ITA no.3715/Mum./2015, is not pressed, hence, dismissed. 3. The only surviving ground, which is common in both the appeals are as under:– “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing of deduction under section 10B

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

10B of Income of Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short, short, the ‘Rules’) return of income filed by the declaring deficit of ₹8,97,94,173/ 8,97,94,173/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the statutory assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the statutory assessee was selected for scrutiny

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)

2. The grounds of appeal raised by Revenue in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) read as under:- I.T.A. No.2936/Mum/2016 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing exemption u/s. 10B to the assessee, even

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. ()

10B Rs.11,44,12,969/- 2. Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) Rs. 5,84,54,070/- 3. Disallowance of premium on FCCB Rs.55,44,94,544/- 4. Disallowance under section

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 40A(2

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”).

2 to section 10B of the Act. Further, the grant of registration from the Development Commissioner of EOU for Legal Services and the inclusion of Legal Database is an eligible product and services for the ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. purpose of grant of deduction under section 10B of the Act in view of CBDT‟s Notification

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”).

2 to section 10B of the Act. Further, the grant of registration from the Development Commissioner of EOU for Legal Services and the inclusion of Legal Database is an eligible product and services for the ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. purpose of grant of deduction under section 10B of the Act in view of CBDT‟s Notification

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”).

2 to section 10B of the Act. Further, the grant of registration from the Development Commissioner of EOU for Legal Services and the inclusion of Legal Database is an eligible product and services for the ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. purpose of grant of deduction under section 10B of the Act in view of CBDT‟s Notification

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”).

2 to section 10B of the Act. Further, the grant of registration from the Development Commissioner of EOU for Legal Services and the inclusion of Legal Database is an eligible product and services for the ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. purpose of grant of deduction under section 10B of the Act in view of CBDT‟s Notification

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”).

2 to section 10B of the Act. Further, the grant of registration from the Development Commissioner of EOU for Legal Services and the inclusion of Legal Database is an eligible product and services for the ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. purpose of grant of deduction under section 10B of the Act in view of CBDT‟s Notification

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”).

2 to section 10B of the Act. Further, the grant of registration from the Development Commissioner of EOU for Legal Services and the inclusion of Legal Database is an eligible product and services for the ACIT Vs. M/s. Majmudar & Co. purpose of grant of deduction under section 10B of the Act in view of CBDT‟s Notification

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause why the deduction under section 10B and section 80-IB of the Act should not be computed after allocating head office expenses and other common expenses. In response, the assessee submitted that the expenses

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

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

2) of the Act. 5.5 It is correct that section 80JJAA is not a profit linked 5.5 It is correct that section 80JJAA is not a profit linked 5.5 It is correct that section 80JJAA is not a profit linked deduction and is linked with expenditure. The sections uses and is linked with expenditure. The sections uses and is linked