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

sections 92BA and 92F(ii), Rules 10B(1)(a), 10B(2) and 10B(3), Instruction No.3 of 2016, ITC case (supra) and Glaxo case (supra) will not allow such practices of claiming more deduction for the eligible unit by adopting higher notional rate equivalent to the sale rate of Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 distribution company

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

801A as cost of the eligible undertakings. 100. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, only a few material facts need to be taken note of. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that while computing the deduction under section 80IA in respect of captive power plants, ports and rail systems, the assessee

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

801A as cost of the eligible undertakings. 100. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, only a few material facts need to be taken note of. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that while computing the deduction under section 80IA in respect of captive power plants, ports and rail systems, the assessee

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

3. Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 (Bom) (Bom) 4. Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction

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

3. Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 (Bom) (Bom) 4. Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore\nstands dismissed

3) of Section 14A cannot operate from any date\nprior to the AY 2008-09, therefore, the year under consideration would be out of\nthe ambit of Rule 8D and no disallowance following the provisions of Rule 8D can\nbe apply in the present matter. This issue was also discussed at length by the\nHon'ble Mumbai High Court

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

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

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

section 801A by the Finance Acts 2007 and 2009, we place our reliance on the following decisions: i) B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 34 taxmann.com 97; ii) AC IT v. Pate I KNR Joint Venture ITA 5230/M/2012; iii) DCIT v. V.R.M. (India) Ltd. ITA 81 1/Del/2008; iv) KCL BEL Tarmat JV v, ITO ITA 11 1/Rjt/2010

THE ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

801A. 10. Interest from Income Tax Department. 10.1. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in taxing interest of Rs.49,00,34,949/- received from Income Tax Department during the previous year. 10.2. The CIT (A) ought to have held that since the aforesaid amount

M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR - 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

801A. 10. Interest from Income Tax Department. 10.1. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in taxing interest of Rs.49,00,34,949/- received from Income Tax Department during the previous year. 10.2. The CIT (A) ought to have held that since the aforesaid amount

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

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 under section 14A of the Act\nGround no 7- Addition of Rs 92,75,000 disallowed under section 14A\nwhile computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act\n7. On the facts

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

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 under section 14A of the Act\nGround no 7- Addition of Rs 92,75,000 disallowed under section 14A\nwhile computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act\n7. On the facts

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

Appeal is dismissed

ii). 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO while computing average investment for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A/Rule 8D has wrongly considered investments in subsidiary and associate entities. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD vs. THE DY CIT 1(1),

801A, then on same basis, the common income credited to the profit & loss account but not allocated by the appellant to the individual units should also be allocated and accordingly. considered in computing the profit and gains the said undertakings eligible u/s 80HH/80-I/IA on principles of equity and justice and consistent accounting practice.‖ 3. The relevant facts for adjudication

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance made on account of exchange rate fluctuation loss. 86. The brief facts of the case pertaining to the issue, as emanating from the record, are: In the year under consideration, the assessee‟s annual accounts show exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.83,68,690. The assessee was asked to give details and break–up of the loss. From the details

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance made on account of exchange rate fluctuation loss. 86. The brief facts of the case pertaining to the issue, as emanating from the record, are: In the year under consideration, the assessee‟s annual accounts show exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.83,68,690. The assessee was asked to give details and break–up of the loss. From the details

PATEL ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

3,57,41,165 + 21,07,13,288) is not acceptable. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction u/s 801A to the tune of Rs. 45,26,50,680/- made by the AO in respect of above mentioned three projects is upheld. However the overall deduction u/s 801A will be restricted to gross total income as prescribed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

3,57,41,165 + 21,07,13,288) is not acceptable. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction u/s 801A to the tune of Rs. 45,26,50,680/- made by the AO in respect of above mentioned three projects is upheld. However the overall deduction u/s 801A will be restricted to gross total income as prescribed