OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

disallowance should have been made on the proportionate basis to the extent of 2 flats sold to the same individual. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 8018(10) of the Act should be interpreted liberally. Further, it is submitted that even if the units constructed are both smaller and larger units with reference to the stipulated area, the profit derived from

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

disallowance should have been made on the proportionate basis to the extent of 2 flats sold to the same individual. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 8018(10) of the Act should be interpreted liberally. Further, it is submitted that even if the units constructed are both smaller and larger units with reference to the stipulated area, the profit derived from

AVINASH S SADAMATE, ACIT, CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RASHMI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Revenue's appeal and Cross\nObjection are dismissed

801B(10)\nof the Act against the on-money received on the sale of flats. We find\nthat the assessee has admitted on-money of Rs.11,97,98,708/- from sale\nof residential flats and offered it as business income and has claimed\nthat it is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80-IB(10) on the on-money\nreceived from

M/S. AMEYA BUILDERS & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE

disallowed. This view of ours is fortified by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of Malpani Estates vs ACIT (supra). The co-ordinate bench, while considering more or less identical issue of claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of additional income offered because of on-money in an assessment proceeding under section 153A

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE vs. M/S. AMEYA BUILDERS & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

disallowed. This view of ours is fortified by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of Malpani Estates vs ACIT (supra). The co-ordinate bench, while considering more or less identical issue of claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of additional income offered because of on-money in an assessment proceeding under section 153A

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

10. The assessee filed appeals and the revenue filed cross-appeals before\nthe ITAT. The ITAT in the impugned orders concluded that with sub-section\n(2A) beginning with a non-obstante clause, the legislative intention of making\navailable to an undertaking, providing telecommunication services, the\nbenefit of deduction of 100% of the profits and gains \"of the eligible business

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

10. The assessee filed appeals and the revenue filed cross-appeals before\nthe ITAT. The ITAT in the impugned orders concluded that with sub-section\n(2A) beginning with a non-obstante clause, the legislative intention of making\navailable to an undertaking, providing telecommunication services, the\nbenefit of deduction of 100% of the profits and gains \"of the eligible business

KOMAL ENTERPRISES,DOMBIVALI vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4421/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

801B(10) to the extent of Rs.3,40,39,914/- on the ground that commercial establishments of the housing project, exceeded the limit prescribed by sub section (d) to sec 80IB(10), ignoring the fact that the housing project for which deduction u/s 80IB (10) was claimed by the appellant did not contain any commercial premises and therefore the disallowance

KOMAL ENTERPRISES,DOMBIVALI vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4421/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

801B(10) to the extent of Rs.3,40,39,914/- on the ground that commercial establishments of the housing project, exceeded the limit prescribed by sub section (d) to sec 80IB(10), ignoring the fact that the housing project for which deduction u/s 80IB (10) was claimed by the appellant did not contain any commercial premises and therefore the disallowance

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

801B of the Act. 3) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that Appellant is a company engaged in the business of construction and development of real estate. The appellant had developed a housing project in Thane, Maharashtra in respect of which Appellant had claimed

DCIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BIOSTACH INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

disallowance under section 14A made by applying Rule BD should be added while computing the total income as per book profits under section 115JB of the Act 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming the action of AO of not allowing deduction under section

BIOSTADT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

disallowance under section 14A made by applying Rule BD should be added while computing the total income as per book profits under section 115JB of the Act 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming the action of AO of not allowing deduction under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

801B & 10B and are in no way dependent on\nthe said new industrial undertakings and therefore cannot be considered and\nallocated in arriving at the amount of profits derived from the said\nundertakings.\nExpenditure attributable to earning of tax-free income - Section 14A\ndisallowance\n4. erred in confirming disallowance under section 14A in respect of\nexpenditure in relation

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

801B & 10B and are in no way dependent on\nthe said new industrial undertakings and therefore cannot be considered and\nallocated in arriving at the amount of profits derived from the said\nundertakings.\nExpenditure attributable to earning of tax-free income - Section 14A\ndisallowance\n4. erred in confirming disallowance under section 14A in respect of\nexpenditure in relation

DCIT-13(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RIVA RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department\nstands dismissed

10) of the Act. They emphasized that if the assessee fails to\nmeet specific conditions, the entire deduction under this section\nshould not be disallowed. Relevant legal precedents were cited to\nsupport this argument, including i) Biswas Promotors Pvt. Ltd. v/s\nACIT, [2013] 214 taxman 524; ii) CIT v/s Arun Exelo Foundation Pvt.\nLtd., [2013] 212 taxman

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

Appeals are partly allowed

10,863 Opening WDV for the AY 2004-05 as per Assessee INR 39,32,589 Depreciation claimed by Assessee for AY 2004-05 INR 9,83,147 7.2. The CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation of INR 9,83,147/- made by the Assessing Officer. 7.3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before

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

Appeals are partly allowed

10,863 Opening WDV for the AY 2004-05 as per Assessee INR 39,32,589 Depreciation claimed by Assessee for AY 2004-05 INR 9,83,147 7.2. The CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation of INR 9,83,147/- made by the Assessing Officer. 7.3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before

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:

10) of section 80-1A of the Act." The Para 5 of said CBDT circular clearly provides that the deduction u/s 801A(4)(i) of the Act would be available in the hands of transferee enterprise for the unexpired period provided the transfer is not by way of amalgamation or demerger. It is an admitted fact that