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

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

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

ii) shall not\nexceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee.”\n8. From the combined reading of the above provisions, it is clear that for\nthe purpose of application of section 14 r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) the AO has to record\nreasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of\nexpenditure by the assessee

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

ii) shall not\nexceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee.”\n8\nITA No. 5848 & 5935/Mum/2017\nAditya Birla Nuvo Limited\n8. From the combined reading of the above provisions, it is clear that for\nthe purpose of application of section 14 r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) the AO has to record\nreasons as to why he is not satisfied with

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

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

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

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance of INR 47,17,99,596/-\nunder Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of discount\nextended to pre-paid distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the\nAct is deleted. Ground No. 4 raised by the Assessee is allowed.\nGround No. 5\n8. Ground No. 5 raised by the Assessee is directed against the\ndisallowance

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

disallowance of INR 47,17,99,596/-\nunder Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of discount\nextended to pre-paid distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the\nAct is deleted. Ground No. 4 raised by the Assessee is allowed.\nGround No. 5\n8. Ground No. 5 raised by the Assessee is directed against the\ndisallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

801A(8) market value means (1) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market", what is to be seen and tested with comparable is the price that the electricity generated by the eligible unit would ordinarily fetch in the open market if sold and not the rate at which non-eligible unit could procure