GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

2, Pg. 155, Argument of Assessee – Para 8, Pg. 161, Held: Para 12, Pg. 154-169 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) 65. The Appellant further submits that doing business through subsidiaries/JVs is also recognized legal business concept. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. State of UP and Others VsRenusagar Power Co. and Others

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

2, Pg. 155, Argument of Assessee – Para 8, Pg. 161, Held: Para 12, Pg. 154-169 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) 65. The Appellant further submits that doing business through subsidiaries/JVs is also recognized legal business concept. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. State of UP and Others VsRenusagar Power Co. and Others

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

disallowance under section 14A of the Act i.e. identical to the one raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised 7 grounds that are similar to the grounds raised in assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 32. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in respect of applicability

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowed the business loss and unabsorbed depreciation attributable to the Demerged Undertaking while computing the assessed income. In appeal before the CIT(A), the ground raised by the Assessee in relation to set off of the said business loss and unabsorbed depreciation was dismissed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 72A(2

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

2 is against disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

2 is against disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section

SUPREME PETROCHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 72A, where there is an amalgamation between two companies, the accumulated loss and the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company shall deemed to be loss or unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamated company for the previous year in which amalgamation was affected. The appellant submits that the amalgamation was affected in the assessment year under appeal and hence

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

72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 1941(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income hy way of interest\nis obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that\nSection 194A(1) shall not apply if the payment has been made

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 1941(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income hy way of interest\nis obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that\nSection 194A(1) shall not apply if the payment has been made

THE DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

72A(2) as applicable for A.Y.2003-04 are reproduced as under:- “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the accumulated loss shall not be set off or carried forward and the unabsorbed depreciation shall not be allowed in the assessment of the amalgamated company- (i) holds continuously for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation

JSW STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

section 72A(2) for setting off of unobserved depreciation were not satisfied in the case . In assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 1941(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income hy way of interest\nis obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that\nPage 30\nITA Nos.2037, 2119, 2038 & 2118/Mum/2024

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 1941(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest\nis obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that\nPage | 30\nITA Nos.2037, 2119, 2038 & 2118/Mum/2024

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

disallowance is a delay in filing Form 10-IC. Since section 115BAA of the Act makes it mandatory to file the form 10-IC within the date specified, absence of that indicates that it is simply a case wherein the 11 Getinge Medical India Private Limited claim under section 115BAA has not even been made as per the procedure given

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

72A of the Act, the assessee submitted that the intention of the legislature was that the property should include all assets pertaining to the undertaking. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that section