ASST CIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals, of the assessee and Revenue, are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3892/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3789/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) Bajaj Electricals Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of 45/47, Bombay Lite Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), बनाम/ Building, Veer Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4516/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3811/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) The Asst. Commissioner Of Bajaj Electricals Limited Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), 45/47, Bombay Lite Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q

disallowing the commission expense amounting to ₹10,92,49,857/- on the ground that the said expenses were not claimed by way of revised return.” 22. Both sides conceded that the facts and circumstances are exactly identical in AY 2007-08 decided above. As the facts and circumstances are exactly identical in this year also, we set aside this issue

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals, of the assessee and Revenue, are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3892/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3789/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) Bajaj Electricals Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of 45/47, Bombay Lite Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), बनाम/ Building, Veer Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4516/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3811/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) The Asst. Commissioner Of Bajaj Electricals Limited Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), 45/47, Bombay Lite Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q

disallowing the commission expense amounting to ₹10,92,49,857/- on the ground that the said expenses were not claimed by way of revised return.” 22. Both sides conceded that the facts and circumstances are exactly identical in AY 2007-08 decided above. As the facts and circumstances are exactly identical in this year also, we set aside this issue

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

disallowing the proportionate interest expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudication Gr. No. 2 with respect to the action of the Assessing Officer considering total turnover including taxes duties as against total turnover excluding taxes and duties

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

disallowing the proportionate interest expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudication Gr. No. 2 with respect to the action of the Assessing Officer considering total turnover including taxes duties as against total turnover excluding taxes and duties

DSP MERRILL LYNCH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. RANGE 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowing the claim of the appellant for deduction of the same as a revenue expenditure. 4) (a) The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the assessing officer in levying interest under section 2348 of the Act amounting to INR 3,56,37,412. (b) Without prejudice to Ground 4(a) above, and subject to any relief

ADDL CIT SP RG 22, MUMBAI vs. DSP MERRILL LYNCH LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowing the claim of the appellant for deduction of the same as a revenue expenditure. 4) (a) The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the assessing officer in levying interest under section 2348 of the Act amounting to INR 3,56,37,412. (b) Without prejudice to Ground 4(a) above, and subject to any relief

WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee [ITA No

140A and also on imposition of interest under section 234D on the disposal of appeal or otherwise.” 5. Ground No.1 to 5 5.1. Ground No.1 to 5 are pertain to claim of deduction of INR.34,46,21,995/- under Section 80JJA of the Act in respect of Chemical Recovery Boiler Unit. During the financial year 2001- 02 relevant

DCIT, CIR-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SICOM LIMITED, MUMBAI CITY

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalita Nos. 2034 & 2035/Mum/2023 (A.Y:1999-2000 &1998-99) Dcit, Circle-3(3)(1), Vs. M/S Sicom Limited, Room No.609, Solitaire Corporate Aayakar Bhavan, Park, Building No.4, M.K. Road, Guru Nanak Marg, Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Midc S.O, Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs5524J Appellant .. Respondent

disallowed the depreciation on assets acquired under sale and lease back transaction. The assessee has filed writ petition against the A.O order before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay as the A.O has denied the refund of tax to the assessee by not allowing the claim of depreciation on sale & lease back transaction. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 140A(1), then justice, fairness, equity and good conscience demands that same method should be followed while making adjustment for refund of taxes, especially when no contrary provision has been provided. Under these circumstances and aforesaid discussion, we find that the judicial proprietary demands that order of the Tribunal of earlier years must be followed and therefore we direct

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 140A(1), then justice, fairness, equity and good conscience demands that same method should be followed while making adjustment for refund of taxes, especially when no contrary provision has been provided. Under these circumstances and aforesaid discussion, we find that the judicial proprietary demands that order of the Tribunal of earlier years must be followed and therefore we direct

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 140A(1), then justice, fairness, equity and good conscience demands that same method should be followed while making adjustment for refund of taxes, especially when no contrary provision has been provided. Under these circumstances and aforesaid discussion, we find that the judicial proprietary demands that order of the Tribunal of earlier years must be followed and therefore we direct