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-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

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz

JSW STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz

JSW STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz

JSW STEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) along with various supporting evidences including copies of agreement entered into with authorities for development of infrastructure facility which has been reproduced by the learned CIT(A) at Paragraph 6, page no. 4 to 54 of his order. The assessee also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in assessee

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) along with various supporting evidences including copies of agreement entered into with authorities for development of infrastructure facility which has been reproduced by the learned CIT(A) at Paragraph 6, page no. 4 to 54 of his order. The assessee also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in assessee

ACIT CC 39, MUMBAI vs. UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, M/S United Liner Agencies Of Cc-6(4), R. No.32(1), India P. Ltd. बनाम/ Ground Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Office Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road No.801, C-Wing, Behind Mumbai-400020 Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacu5182C Shri Narendra Kumar Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Y. P. Trivedi & Usha Dalal

disallowance of deduction. Thus it was pleaded by Ld. A.R that the claim of deduction has wrongly been denied and it should be allowed to the assessee. 24. The arguments of Ld. DR in reply to the Ld. AR’s arguments as well as arguments with regard to the appeals filed by the revenue are as under

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

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

In the result, the ITA No

IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021[PAN: AAACR5055K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Unit (LTU-2) Mumbai. ………………….Respondent Appearances: Madhur Agarwal along with Moksha Mehtafor the appellant Ms. Vatsalaa Jhafor the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : December 9, 2021 Date of pronouncement the order : March 8,2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP:- 1. These four

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

In the result, the ITA No

IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021[PAN: AAACR5055K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Unit (LTU-2) Mumbai. ………………….Respondent Appearances: Madhur Agarwal along with Moksha Mehtafor the appellant Ms. Vatsalaa Jhafor the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : December 9, 2021 Date of pronouncement the order : March 8,2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP:- 1. These four

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021[PAN: AAACR5055K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Unit (LTU-2) Mumbai. ………………….Respondent Appearances: Madhur Agarwal along with Moksha Mehtafor the appellant Ms. Vatsalaa Jhafor the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : December 9, 2021 Date of pronouncement the order : March 8,2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP:- 1. These four

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

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

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