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

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

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

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act on the basis that the assessee failed to 2 AY 2022-23 Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. furnish the audit report in Form no.10CCB within the stipulated date mentioned in the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned

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

7. We find merit in the contentions of the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee. For the purpose of computation of book profits under section115JB, disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be added. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd.(supra) while answering the observed

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

7. We find merit in the contentions of the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee. For the purpose of computation of book profits under section115JB, disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be added. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd.(supra) while answering the observed

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

7,17,17,809 in the return of income which consisted of\nRs.5,99,75,725 towards interest cost attributable to investment activities and\nRs.1,17,42,084 in connection with expenses attributable to exempt investments.\nThe AO accepted the suo-moto disallowance made towards interest cost but\nmade a disallowance towards indirect expenses

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 of deduction u/s.80IA(4)(i) which has been raised

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

7,17,17,809 in the return of income which consisted of\n5\nITA No. 5848 & 5935/Mum/2017\nAditya Birla Nuvo Limited\nRs.5,99,75,725 towards interest cost attributable to investment activities and\nRs.1,17,42,084 in connection with expenses attributable to exempt investments.\nThe AO accepted the suo-moto disallowance made towards interest cost but\nmade a disallowance

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

Appeal is dismissed

7. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s. 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

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

7\nConstruction Contracts' Issued by ICAI. Thus, on principle\nassessee is entitled to the same.\n66\n025.\nHowever now the issue of quantification arises, on perusal of\norders of lower authorities, we do not find that any of the\nauthorities have examined quantification of the claim of the\nassessee. Assessee has submitted a chart before us where in\nthe loss

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

7\nConstruction Contracts' Issued by ICAI. Thus, on principle\nassessee is entitled to the same.\n“\n66\n025.\nHowever now the issue of quantification arises, on perusal of\norders of lower authorities, we do not find that any of the\nauthorities have examined quantification of the claim of the\nassessee. Assessee has submitted a chart before us where in\nthe

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

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

7. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) 7.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs.2,67,92,244/- towards year-end expenses applying provision of section 40 (a)(ia). 7.2. The CIT (A) ought to have deleted the disallowance and held

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

7. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) 7.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs.2,67,92,244/- towards year-end expenses applying provision of section 40 (a)(ia). 7.2. The CIT (A) ought to have deleted the disallowance and held

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:

801A(4)(i) of the Act is with reference to the transferee enterprise and not with reference to the transferor enterprise and the same is evident as said words "on its behalf" have been used after the words "...such infrastructure facility (hereafter referred to in this section as the transferor enterprise) to another enterprise (hereafter in this section referred

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

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