DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

section 801A 801A 801A stipulates stipulates stipulates development development development or or or maintenance of infrastructure facility." maintenance of infrastructure facility." 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of interest payment when thin capitalization rule is not in force, which is in no way connected to the facts and issue of the instant case? - (Included in 7) 7.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the of capital loss by stating that General Anti

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of interest payment when thin capitalization rule is not in force, which is in no way connected to the facts and issue of the instant case? - (Included in 7) 7.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the of capital loss by stating that General Anti

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 8.1. The relevant facts in brief are the Assessee incurred tax loss for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and, therefore, claimed `Nil' deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. However, during the assessment proceedings it was prayed before the Assessing Officer that in case any additions were made during the course

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 80IA of the Act. The CIT(A) with regard to the deduction made towards excise / CENVAT / VAT directed the AO to rework the deduction based on actual expenditure and restrict the disallowance accordingly. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The ld. AR submitted that this issue is identical to assessee's own case

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 80IA of the Act. The CIT(A) with regard to the deduction made towards excise / CENVAT / VAT directed the AO to rework the deduction based on actual expenditure and restrict the disallowance accordingly. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The ld. AR submitted that this issue is identical to assessee's own case

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

section 801A of the Act on the following:\n6.1 Served from India Scheme (SFIS) income of Rs 3,31,38,860\n6.2 Rs 92,75,000 disallowed

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

section 801A of the Act on the following:\n6.1 Served from India Scheme (SFIS) income of Rs 3,31,38,860\n6.2 Rs 92,75,000 disallowed

JT. COMM OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , CC - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RAJAMUNDRY EXPRESSWAY PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us :-

Section 801A by Finance Act, 2007 clearly states that in a case where a person makes the investment, and himself executes the development work, only then he will be eligible for tax benefit u/s. 80IA of the Act. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the entire claim

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

section 80IA of the Act. The CIT(A) with regard to the deduction\nmade towards excise / CENVAT / VAT directed the AO to rework the deduction\nbased on actual expenditure and restrict the disallowance accordingly. Aggrieved\nthe assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.\n15. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. We\nnoticed that on identical

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

section 80IA of the Act. The CIT(A) with regard to the deduction\nmade towards excise / CENVAT / VAT directed the AO to rework the deduction\nbased on actual expenditure and restrict the disallowance accordingly. Aggrieved\nthe assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.\n15. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. We\nnoticed that on identical

ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance confirmed by the\nlearned CIT (A) is with respect to certain non-\ngovernment contracts on the ground that assessee has\nfailed to provide a documentary evidences. Now it is\nthe claim of the assessee that contracts entered into\nwith non- Government entities are originally awarded\nto them by the Government. It was also pointed out\nthat

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

801A of the Act of Rs. 48,79,600/- disallowed on account of common expenses. 8. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act of Rs. 48,79,600/- disallowed on account of common expenses relying on the decision

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Section of the Act for "same income". The decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of KEI Industries Ltd (supra) proceeds on the view that the deductions provided u/s 10A/10B/10AA in Chapter EII arc "exemption" provisions and the deductions provided under Chapter VIA (801A, 80IB etc) are deduction provision. Though the above said interpretation is contrary

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Section of the Act for "same income". The decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of KEI Industries Ltd (supra) proceeds on the view that the deductions provided u/s 10A/10B/10AA in Chapter EII arc "exemption" provisions and the deductions provided under Chapter VIA (801A, 80IB etc) are deduction provision. Though the above said interpretation is contrary

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Section of the Act for "same income". The decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of KEI Industries Ltd (supra) proceeds on the view that the deductions provided u/s 10A/10B/10AA in Chapter EII arc "exemption" provisions and the deductions provided under Chapter VIA (801A, 80IB etc) are deduction provision. Though the above said interpretation is contrary

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LIMITED , MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance confirmed by the\nlearned CIT (A) is with respect to certain non-\ngovernment contracts on the ground that assessee has\nfailed to provide a documentary evidences. Now it is\nthe claim of the assessee that contracts entered into\nwith non- Government entities are originally awarded\nto them by the Government. It was also pointed out\nthat

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAVKAR CORPORATION LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, we affirm the order of the Ld

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 801A(4)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.266,13,62,345/- The tax on Book Profit being higher than the tax payable on the total income, tax u/s 115JB was paid for taxation amounting to Rs. 128,54,71,778/-. 4. In so far as the disallowance