DCIT 6(2), MUMBAI vs. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance having been made with respect to addition of Rs. 5,12,27,909 u/s 145A of the 1961 Act on account of differential Cenvat Credit in opening and closing stock. The assessee is following exclusive method of accounting while valuing stock while the Revenue is contending that only inclusive method of accounting can be adopted while valuing stock keeping

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2) , MUMBAI

145A are applicable for computing deemed income\nu/s.44B and GST is added to the specified amounts and\nprovisions of Section 29 are invoked, then deduction of GST paid\nshould be allowed while computing income under the head\n'profits and gains' of business or profession as per Section 43B.\nEven otherwise also Section 44B over rights Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed 50% of the expenses towards capitalization to the cost of project. On further appeal, the CIT(A) held that the directors salary and handover facility expenses are incurred year after year and they are related to the business of the assessee in general and not project specific expenses. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that these expenses are neither capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed 50% of the expenses towards capitalization to the cost of project. On further appeal, the CIT(A) held that the directors salary and handover facility expenses are incurred year after year and they are related to the business of the assessee in general and not project specific expenses. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that these expenses are neither capital

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 3(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowed once GST has not been paid within the due date. However, this is purely academic, contention which has been raised because we have already held that for the purpose of Section 44B only specified amount mentioned in the sub-Section 2 of Section 44B alone is the subject matter of computation of profit @7.5% and Section 145A

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INT. TAXATION)RANGE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 4 of the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed once GST has not been paid within the due\ndate. However, this is purely academic, contention which has been raised\nbecause we have already held that for the purpose of Section 44B only\nspecified amount mentioned in the sub-Section 2 of Section 44B alone is the\nsubject matter of computation of profit @7.5% and Section 145A

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

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

Disallowance for excess Ground No.8 - depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

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

Disallowance for excess Ground No.8 - depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

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

Disallowance for excess Ground No.8 - depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

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

Disallowance for excess Ground No.8 - depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

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

Disallowance for excess Ground No.8 - depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

MACROTECH DEVEOPERS LIMITED (SUCESSOR TO SHREENIWAS COTTON MILLS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor Of Shreeniwas Cotton Dcit, Cc-7(3) Mills Ltd) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Macrotech Developers Limited (Successor Of Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd) Dcit, Cc-7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhaman Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Fort Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl1490J Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri Asif Karmali

section 145A of the act held that such expenses are to be allowed in the year in which they are incurred and not to be included in the cost of work in progress. The identical issue was also decided by the coordinate bench in ITA number 4579/M/2013 for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Hiranandani Palace Gardens private limited

SIEMENS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance should be made in respect thereof. M/s. Siemens Ltd., 12 24.03.2010 The CIT passed the impugned order under section 263 of the Act inter-alia revising the assessment order 25.02.2008 passed by the A.O. with respect to the adjustment to be made under section 145A

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

section 40A(9) of the Act. 9. Without Prejudice to above, the Assessing Officer should not have added the disallowance of Rs. 94,470/- in the assessed total income since the Appellant had themself added it in returned income and hence further addition results in double taxation. Ground F 3 ITA No. 7424 Mum 2010 & 8533 Mum 2011-Greaves Cotton

ESSEL PROPACK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhessel Propack Limited, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Top Floor, Times Tower, Income Tax Range-6(3)(2), Room No. 563, 5Th Floor, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaace 1568L Appellant Respondednt

section 145A on account of cenvat credit to the value of purchases / sales, opening stock and closing stock. 5. Disallowance

ACIT CC 6(3), MUMBAI vs. EXCEL CROP CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

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

Disallowance of prior period Expenditure of Rs. 2,959,408/– vi. Addition made on adjustment under section 145A of the act of Rs. 33,398,840/– 05. Against

EXCEL CROP CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

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

Disallowance of prior period Expenditure of Rs. 2,959,408/– vi. Addition made on adjustment under section 145A of the act of Rs. 33,398,840/– 05. Against

DCIT CEN CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. EXCEL CROP CARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

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

Disallowance of prior period Expenditure of Rs. 2,959,408/– vi. Addition made on adjustment under section 145A of the act of Rs. 33,398,840/– 05. Against

EXCEL CROP CARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all 7 appeals pertaining to the assessee are disposed of by partly allowing the appeal is of the assessee and the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 a...

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

Disallowance of prior period Expenditure of Rs. 2,959,408/– vi. Addition made on adjustment under section 145A of the act of Rs. 33,398,840/– 05. Against