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

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 and in law the Ld.CIT

DCIT CENT. CIR -8(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALLCARGO LOGISTIC LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit C.Cir 8(1), Vs. All Cargo Logistic Ltd Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Avvashya Aayakar Bhavan, House, Cst Road, Mk Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400098. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca2894D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Madhur Agrawal, Mr Fenil Bhatt & Mr. Chimanlal Dangi.Ar Date Of Hearing 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai, Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance made u/s 801A(4) of the Act at Rs.4,04,83,352/-. The appellant has made elaborate submissions and the same are considered carefully. The appellant's main contentions are that they have fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in sec 801A(4) of the Act and hence are eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. 7.4.2 From

SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing claim of deduction of Rs. 48,06,281/- u/s 801A(4) of the Act made by the Appellant in the return of income filed for the year and thereby treating the same as incorrect claim u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), erred in confirming action of the CPC Bangalore in making adjustment

NITCO PAINTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance of deduction under section 801A(4)(iv) of Income Tax Act, 1961 amount Rs. 54,18,557/-. 2. On the facts

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

ANUH PHARMA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

4) wherein after having\ndetailed discussion it has been held that, section 37(1) which\ndenies deduction for CSR expenses by way of business\n\nexpenditure is applicable only to extent of computing 'business\nincome' under Chapter IV-D and it could not be extended or\nimported to CSR contributions which was otherwise eligible for\ndeduction under Chapter VI donation

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

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

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)

disallowed. 10. Apart from that ld. AO has also noted that assessee has claimed amount of Rs.55,71,649/- on account of loss of sale of fixed assets in respect of certain trolleys and trucks etc., which have purchased in different years beginning from the year 2008-2017 and depreciation has been claimed there against opening WDV as on 01/04/2017

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

Section 43B of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 01/04/1988. The First Proviso made it clear that Section 43B shall not apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee in the next accounting year if it is paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

801A(4) of the IT Act, 1961.” 5.2. Assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance so made. Findings of ld. CIT(A) while giving relief to the assesse are based on the following observations: “1. Perusal of S.801A(4) read with relevant sub clauses (a), (b) & (c) it is clear that the said clause

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

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

801A(4) of the IT Act, 1961.” 5.2. Assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance so made. Findings of ld. CIT(A) while giving relief to the assesse are based on the following observations: “1. Perusal of S.801A(4) read with relevant sub clauses (a), (b) & (c) it is clear that the said clause

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

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

801A(4) of the Act. Hence, the said decision does not address the or"/ controversy of "developer" v. "contractor.” 45. Thus, we hold that assessee is a developer of each of the infrastructure facility mentioned hereinabove and considering the scope of work undertaken by the assessee in each of the contracts, the work carried out by the assessee cannot

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

801A(4) of the Act. Reference in this regard is also made to para 56 of the ITAT's order rendered in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 56. With regard to CIT(A)S observation the A. Y.2010-11 at page 42 to the effect that the so called 'Rail System

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

801A(4) of the Act. Reference in this regard is also made to para 56 of the ITAT's order rendered in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 56. With regard to CIT(A)S observation the A. Y.2010-11 at page 42 to the effect that the so called 'Rail System

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

4) of the Act as per Explanation 2 clause (c) deduction can be allowed in respect of “a water supply project” as an infrastructure facility. In the case of CIT v.ABG heavy industries limited the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under: "The object of section 80-IA was to provide an impetus to the growth of infrastructure

DCIT-CC-8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit-Cc-8(4), Savita Oil Technologies Limited Mumbai 66-67 Nariman Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021, Pan: Aaacs7934A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Chaitanya Joshi, Cas Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit (A) 50, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1075632908(1), Dated 15.04.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit,Cc- 8(4), Mumbai, U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 24.08.2021 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Justified In Law In Allowing Deduction Under Section 80-Ia(4) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Without Adjusting The Losses Incurred By The Eligible Undertaking Prior To The Initial Assessment Year, Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80-Ia(S)? 2. Whether The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Correct In Law In Relying Upon Cbdt Circular No. 1/2016 & The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Vcllayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (340 Itr 477) When There Exist Contrary Binding Judicial Precedents Mandating That Losses Of Earlier Years, Even

disallowance has been reduced to Rs. 4,02,23,291/- by the Assessing Officer on account of rectification of a mistake. 2. Before the CIT(A), assessee assailed the working of the Assessing Officer and pointed out that having regard to the provisions of Sec. 801A(5) of the Act, as understood by the Hon'ble Madras High Court

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after all the machines