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

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

43A vide Finance Act, 2002. Therefore, the amended section is amendatory and not clarificatory in nature. Conclusion: 35. For reasons given hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgments of the Delhi High Court and accordingly the Civil Appeals filed by the Department stand dismissed with no order as to costs.” In view of the aforementioned detailed discussion

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

section 43A, assessee was entitled to adjust\nactual cost of imported assets acquired in foreign currency on\naccount of fluctuation in rate of exchange at each balance-sheet\ndate, pending actual payment of varied liability - Held, Income-tax\nAct, 1961 Foreign currency, rate of Assessment year 1998-99\nWhether amendment Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

Section 43A, assessee was entitled to adjust\nactual cost of imported assets acquired in foreign currency on\naccount of fluctuation in rate of exchange at each balance-sheet\ndate, pending actual payment of varied liability - Held, Income-tax\nAct, 1961 Foreign currency, rate of Assessment year 1998-99\nWhether amendment Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: us. 2.

disallowance of INR 26.31 Crores under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules sustained by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee is, therefore, allowed and Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Additional Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee 5. By way of Additional Ground

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

disallowed the same under both the & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 normal provisions of the Act as well as book profits returned under clause (c) of Explanation 1 of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. 23. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the submissions made before

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

disallowed the same under both the & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 normal provisions of the Act as well as book profits returned under clause (c) of Explanation 1 of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. 23. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the submissions made before

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not chargeable with respect to tax liability determined under minimum alternate tax (MAT)?" 12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court as noted by us are as under: "32. This brings us to the second question which deals with charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C when income

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not chargeable with respect to tax liability determined under minimum alternate tax (MAT)?” ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023 A.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. 12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court as noted by us are as under: “32. This brings

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not chargeable with respect to tax liability determined under minimum alternate tax (MAT)?” ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023 A.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. 12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court as noted by us are as under: “32. This brings

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

section 234B and section 234C of the Act was not chargeable with respect to tax liability determined under minimum alternate tax (MAT)?" 61 ITA No.1172, 1175 & 1176/M/2023 ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023 A.Y Nos. 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Patanjali Foods Ltd. 12.4 The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court as noted by us are as under

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 40(a)(i) should not be deducted in the event there is a failure to deduct the tax at source in terms of Chapter XVII-B. Therefore, a sum ought to be of the nature payable under sub-clause (i) outside India or in India to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 40(a)(i) should not be deducted in the event there is a failure to deduct the tax at source in terms of Chapter XVII-B. Therefore, a sum ought to be of the nature payable under sub-clause (i) outside India or in India to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company

ACIT-CIRCLE-5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

1,80,76,104/-, which was earlier capitalized to the vessels, as the income of the assessee by resorting to the 12 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act. The AO has stated that the gain is not related to the vessel as the vessel has not been acquired by the assessee

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

1,80,76,104/-, which was earlier capitalized to the vessels, as the income of the assessee by resorting to the 12 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act. The AO has stated that the gain is not related to the vessel as the vessel has not been acquired by the assessee