DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the above 2 items included in computation of deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 21. During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the above 2 items included in computation of deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 21. During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the above 2 items included in computation of deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 21. During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

SANGHAVI JEWEL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

11A) of the Act permits amendment of deduction claimed under section 10A, section 10B and section 10BA of the Act on realization of export sale proceeds. The said provision is totally silent insofar as it relates to realization of export sale proceeds under section 10AA of the Act. However, in case of M/s. Dania Oro Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. (supra

HARISONS STEEL LTD,WADA THANE vs. DCIT 12(2)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.” After referring the show cause notice the assessing officer in the assessment order stated as under: “4.4 The findings in the show cause notice and the facts of the case including the business activity indicated the following: a) The assessee did not require the material of the nature for which

HARISONS STEEL LIMITED,WADA THANE vs. DY CIT 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.” After referring the show cause notice the assessing officer in the assessment order stated as under: “4.4 The findings in the show cause notice and the facts of the case including the business activity indicated the following: a) The assessee did not require the material of the nature for which

M/S. T BHIMJYANI WAREHOUSEING COLD CHAIN PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI-51 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose with similar directions

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1263 /मुं/ 2022 (िन.व. 2019-20)

disallowable under section 43B(total of 11a to 11g) in schedule OI. 3 ITA Nos. 1263 & 1264/MUM/2022(A.Y.2019-20) (iii) In Schedule

M/S. T BHIMJYANI REALTY PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose with similar directions

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1263 /मुं/ 2022 (िन.व. 2019-20)

disallowable under section 43B(total of 11a to 11g) in schedule OI. 3 ITA Nos. 1263 & 1264/MUM/2022(A.Y.2019-20) (iii) In Schedule

ACIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GINI & JONY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1892 & 1893/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 9(3)(2) M/S. Gini & Jony Ltd. 418, 4Th Floor, A-601, Citi Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059, स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1295N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

11A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (11), penalty under this section may be imposed while passing an order under this Act.] 14[(12) ***********] (13) For the purposes of this section, Commissioner includes any appellate authority appointed or constituted under this Act. Now the moot question before us is whether this interest payable

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal

Bench: Shri P.K Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowance u/s 11A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional grounds of appeal filed by assessee. The assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional grounds and adjudicated them on merits

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs. 10,01,707/- of overseas taxes paid by the assessee and claimed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act 10.1 On this issue the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed expenditure with respect to overseas taxes paid. A question was raised to the assessee to substantiate its claim in terms of provisions of section

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore\nstands dismissed

disallowance of Rs.10,01,707/- of\noverseas taxes paid by the assessee and claimed as deduction u/s 37 of\nthe Act\n\n10.1 On this issue the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has claimed\nexpenditure with respect to overseas taxes paid. A question was raised to the\nassessee to substantiate its claim in terms of provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXMP)-2(4), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. VISHNU JANARDAN SHIROLKAR MAHAJAN WADY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised\nby assessee are allowed

11A of the Act as stated in section 12A(b) read with Rule\n17B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Assessee was issued show cause notice as to why\nexemption claimed by it under section 11 should be disallowed

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. ULKA SEA FOODS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

11A) constitutes a stand- alone item in the matter of computation of profits. Sections 80-IB and 80-IA are a code by themselves as they contain both substantive as well as procedural provisions. Section 80-IB provides for the allowing of deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the eligible business. The connotation of the words "derived

ULKA SEAFOODS P.LTD,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

11A) constitutes a stand- alone item in the matter of computation of profits. Sections 80-IB and 80-IA are a code by themselves as they contain both substantive as well as procedural provisions. Section 80-IB provides for the allowing of deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the eligible business. The connotation of the words "derived

DCIT 9(3), MUMBAI vs. WIPRO TECHNOLOGY SERVICES .LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Wipro Technology Tax, Circle 9(3) Services P. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Interface Ii]Link Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Malad (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 064 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc4700G Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Suilgol, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Drs’ Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024

Section 155(11A), appellant is entitled for entire deduction. It is however, pertinent to mention that this new fact has been submitted during the course of appellate proceedings which authenticity is required to be verified by the Assessing Officer, hence it is in the interest of justice, both for Assessing Officer and appellant, to direct Assessing Officer to re-verify

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. M/S ACE PLASTICS , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

11A) and (11B)81a] (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified

SHREE PUSHKAR CHEMICALS & FERTILISERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5388/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Shree Puskhar Chemicals Dcit 7(2) & Fertilisers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 202-A Wing, Mumbai V. Building No. 3, Rahul Mittal Industrial Estate, Sir M V Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs9372E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. V. K. Chaturvedi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5388/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 28.06.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-14/It-108/2012-13, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 09.01.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.5388/Mum/2016

disallowed the said claim of deduction raised by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 25,07,133/- u/s 80IB of the 1961 Act and the same was added back to the income of the assessee by AO , vide assessment order dated 09.01.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment framed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LYKA LABS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Lyka Labs Ltd., 5Th Floor, Room No. Ground Floor, Spencer 509, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg, 30, Forjett Street. Churchgate, Grant Road(West), Mumbai -400036. Mumbai -400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0820G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Shailja Rai. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri .Jayesh Dadia. Ar Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

11A. The Supreme Court has stated that it was not expressing any opinion by Ca way of explanation what it had decided in relation to other statutory provisions including section 271 (1) (c)]. However, reasoning adopted by it in explaining earlier decision relation to section 11AC of Central Excise Act cannot be ignored in relation to section