CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalcidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Ground Floor, Cidco Bhavan, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614 Pan:Aaaac2203N ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 28(1) (3)/ Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

disallowance of deduction under section 80P (2) (a) (i) of the Act. The Ld. CIT (Appeal) vide his order under section 250 of the act dated 13.10.2022 upheld the Ld. Assessing Officer’s observation that the Assessee has to be treated as a Society and not a bank. Further, the Ld. CIT (A) held that the Assessee was an urban

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance on account of the trade\ndiscount given to the prepaid distributors under section 40(a)(ia) is deleted.\nAccordingly, Ground No.5 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed.\n22.\nThe issue arising in Ground No.6, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains\nto the non-allowance of deduction under section 80

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

80-IA of the Act.” (Emphasis Supplied) 25. In view of the above, we accept the contention of the Assessee that deduction under Section 80IA of the Act is to be allowed from the Gross Total Income and the same cannot be restricted to income computed under the head ‘Profits & Gains of Business or Profession’. Further, the scope of Section

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

80-IA of the Act.” (Emphasis Supplied) 25. In view of the above, we accept the contention of the Assessee that deduction under Section 80IA of the Act is to be allowed from the Gross Total Income and the same cannot be restricted to income computed under the head ‘Profits & Gains of Business or Profession’. Further, the scope of Section

MOUNT MARY NAGARI CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

80-IE", "Section 80P(2)(d)" ], "issues": "Whether the claim for deduction under Section 80P can be disallowed solely on the ground

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

section 80-IA - Whether price charged by assessee while transferring manufactured electricity from C.P.P. unit to its other unit including electricity tax levied by State Electricity Board was price ordinarily prevailing in open market, and, therefore, Commissioner(Appeals) was not justified in disallowing

SAIDATAR CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,BORIVALI WEST vs. ITO 32(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowing the cash of Rs. 18,07,000, deposited during the demonetisation period, under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer treated 10% of the total credits (excluding the cash deposits during the demonetisation period) as business income of the assessee. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 29/07/2021 dismissed the appeal

RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-11 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Right Tight Fastners Pvt. Ltd. Acit-11(1)(1) 18-A/31, Manish Kaveri, Four Aayakar R. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Bunglows, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053

80- IC shall be allowed to an assessee who does not furnish a return of his income on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139. This amendment takes effect retrospectively from 1-4-2006 and applies in relation to the assess merit year 2006 07 and subsequent years." From above provisions and explanation explaining

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. ASHISH CONSTRUCTION CO., THANE

In the result, the common question of law framed in these two appeals are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006 - 2007 Asst. Cit Circle-2, Ashish Construction Co., Thane S-1, Narmada Apartments, बनाम/ Cabin Road, Bhayander Vs. Road (E), Thane 401 105 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aajfa4249G राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri V Vidhyadhar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Sanjay Sharma

80- IB(10) was disallowed for the assessment year 2005-06. 10. The appeals filed by the assessee against the disallowance of the claim under section

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

disallowance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

disallowance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

disallowance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

disallowance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

disallowance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

disallowance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

disallowance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, [section 115JB, [section 115JC] or section 115VW] or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.] The appellant has contended that it had claimed deduction u/s 11(2) of Rs.6,50,00,000/- and prepared form No.10

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

80(IA) in respect of the power\nplant in spite of the fact that the power generated by the assessee\nwas captively used.\n4. Disallowance of Interest paid: - Rs. 146,73,00,000/-\nThe learned Assessing Officer erred disallowing Rs. 146,73,00,000/-\nin respect of interest expenditure:- an amount of\na. by treating the same as capital expenditure