ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

disallowance be deleted. 10.1. Ground No. VII pertains to reduction on claim under Section 80HHC of the Act by reducing 90% of entire other income by way of interest and miscellaneous income. The claim of the Assessee is that the Assessing Officer erred in reduced 90% of the entire other income of INR 11,84,18,570/- while computing deduction

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

disallowance be deleted. 10.1. Ground No. VII pertains to reduction on claim under Section 80HHC of the Act by reducing 90% of entire other income by way of interest and miscellaneous income. The claim of the Assessee is that the Assessing Officer erred in reduced 90% of the entire other income of INR 11,84,18,570/- while computing deduction

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

9. With regard to disallowance under section 14A being added to the book profits under section 115JB of the Act, the ld. AR submitted that this issue has also been considered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 20110-11 (supra) where it has been held that – “7. We find merit

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

9. With regard to disallowance under section 14A being added to the book profits under section 115JB of the Act, the ld. AR submitted that this issue has also been considered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 20110-11 (supra) where it has been held that – “7. We find merit

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

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

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

9. With regard to disallowance under section 14A being added to the\nbook profits under section 115JB of the Act, the ld. AR submitted that this\nissue has also been considered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in\nassessee's own case for AY 20110-11 (supra) where it has been held that\n7. We find merit

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

9. With regard to disallowance under section 14A being added to the\nbook profits under section 115JB of the Act, the ld. AR submitted that this\nissue has also been considered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in\nassessee's own case for AY 20110-11 (supra) where it has been held that\n7. We find merit

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

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, C.O. filed by assessee is\ndismissed as infructuous

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

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance confirmed by the\nlearned CIT (A) is with respect to certain non-\ngovernment contracts on the ground that assessee has\nfailed to provide a documentary evidences. Now it is\nthe claim of the assessee that contracts entered into\nwith non- Government entities are originally awarded\nto them by the Government. It was also pointed out\nthat

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

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance confirmed by the\nlearned CIT (A) is with respect to certain non-\ngovernment contracts on the ground that assessee has\nfailed to provide a documentary evidences. Now it is\nthe claim of the assessee that contracts entered into\nwith non- Government entities are originally awarded\nto them by the Government. It was also pointed out\nthat

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-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)

801A = 52,14,47,455 9. Accordingly, ld.AO has computed the deduction u/s.80IA of Rs.52,14,47,455/- as against Rs66,13,62,345/- and amount of Rs.13,99,14,890/- was 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

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

9: Incorrect computation of Book Profits\nunder Section 115JB of the Act\n(n)\nGround No. 10 : Non-Grant of full credit in respect of\nTax Deducted at Source (TDS)\n(o)\nGround No. 11 : Initiation of penalty proceedings\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of\nappeal