ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

35E deals with deduction for expenditure on prospecting etc. for certain minerals. Section 36 deals with other deductions. Section 37 deals with general expenditure and purposes of the business or profession. That shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits or Gains of Business or Profession. Section 38 deals with building etc., partly used for business

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

35E deals with deduction for expenditure on prospecting etc. for certain minerals. Section 36 deals with other deductions. Section 37 deals with general expenditure and purposes of the business or profession. That shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits or Gains of Business or Profession. Section 38 deals with building etc., partly used for business

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

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

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

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

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

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

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

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

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

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

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

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

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

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

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

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

DCIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

disallowance of claim u/s 35E, amounting to Rs.3,44,00,000/-. The crux of argument advanced on behalf of the assessee is that for Assessment year 2000-01, identically, the claim of the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer by passing an order u/s 143(3) of the Act and no notice u/s 147/148 of the Act was given

ADDL CIT CEN CIR IX, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

disallowance of claim u/s 35E, amounting to Rs.3,44,00,000/-. The crux of argument advanced on behalf of the assessee is that for Assessment year 2000-01, identically, the claim of the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer by passing an order u/s 143(3) of the Act and no notice u/s 147/148 of the Act was given

ACIT CEN CIR CIR-34, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

disallowance of claim u/s 35E, amounting to Rs.3,44,00,000/-. The crux of argument advanced on behalf of the assessee is that for Assessment year 2000-01, identically, the claim of the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer by passing an order u/s 143(3) of the Act and no notice u/s 147/148 of the Act was given

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. PRISM JOHNSON LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed

35E of the Act, disallowance u/s 40A(9) of the Act and\nclaim of depreciation in respect of badminton court. The claim in respect\nof Sales Tax/VAT subsidy was taken before the Tribunal by way of an\nadditional ground and the claim of the assessee was that the said\nsubsidy is a capital receipt. While deciding the issue on additional

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. SURESH GURUBUXSING WADHWA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of interest expenses relating to the impugned loans in both the years.” 11.151 In the case of ITO 4(2)(4) vs Khushboo Exports Pvt. Ltd [3647/M/2017],the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai had held as under:- “The assessing officer has made the impugned addition u s 68 of the Act. Under the provisions

USHDEV INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ushdev International Tax, Range-2 (3), R. No.552, 5Th 6Th Ltd., Floor, New Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Harileela House, Mint Road, Mumbai 400 020 Road, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacu 1672 R Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Ushdev International Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of 6Th Ltd., Floor, New Income Tax, Range-2 (3), R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Harileela House, Mint Road, Mumbai 400 001 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacu 1672 R Appellant .. Respondent

disallowing the claim of expenditure amounting to Rs.1,12,41,111/- in relation to abandoned projects by merely stating that the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee in the course of appellate proceedings relate to expansion of the existing business and do not apply to the facts of the assessee. The learned AR further argued that during the financial

M/S. TATA CHEMICAL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT RG. 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

35E of the Act on these expenses and therefore this ground becomes otiose. Thus this ground is dismissed as infructuous. 3.1 Ground No.2 is relating to issue of disallowance of entertainment expenses. The Assessee’s claim is that a deduction of 50% should be allowed for accompanying staff members. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has allowed 25% for accompanying staff members