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

In the result, the ITA No

801B(9) of the Act as per Form 10CCB submitted by the appellant. The appellant's claim of ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 11 of 105 deduction of eligible profit u/s 10AA and 80IB{9) of the Act has not exceeded the profit of the undertaking in respect of SEZ refinery unit

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

Appeals are partly allowed

Section 80IB of the Act accordingly. 9. Ground No. VI I.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction made by the ACIT in respect of the Appellant's claim for deduction u/s 801B of the Act by disregarding certain incomes while computing the profits for the aforesaid deduction. I.2 The Appellant therefore prays that the said disallowance

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

Appeals are partly allowed

Section 80IB of the Act accordingly. 9. Ground No. VI I.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction made by the ACIT in respect of the Appellant's claim for deduction u/s 801B of the Act by disregarding certain incomes while computing the profits for the aforesaid deduction. I.2 The Appellant therefore prays that the said disallowance

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

section 80IB and to modify the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 7. Each of the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. 8. The appellant craves liberty to add, to alter and /or amend the grounds of appeal as and when given.” 7. Ground No.1 is identical to ground no.1

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

section 80IB and to modify the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 7. Each of the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. 8. The appellant craves liberty to add, to alter and /or amend the grounds of appeal as and when given.” 7. Ground No.1 is identical to ground no.1

THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

section 80IB and to modify the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 7. Each of the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. 8. The appellant craves liberty to add, to alter and /or amend the grounds of appeal as and when given.” 7. Ground No.1 is identical to ground no.1

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

9. The issue arising in ground No. 3, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to computation of book profit under section 115 JB by considering the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 10. We find that this issue is recurring in nature and was considered in assessee’s own case for assessment years

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

9. The issue arising in ground No. 3, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to computation of book profit under section 115 JB by considering the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 10. We find that this issue is recurring in nature and was considered in assessee’s own case for assessment years

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

disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia)\nof the Act in respect of discount offered to pre-paid distributors.\"\n(9). \"The DRP, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the\naddition of Rs.133,79,00,000/- made on account of receipt for pre-paid\nservices which crystallized during the year itself.\"\n10). \"The DRP, Ahmedabad has erred

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

disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia)\nof the Act in respect of discount offered to pre-paid distributors.\"\n(9). \"The DRP, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the\naddition of Rs.133,79,00,000/- made on account of receipt for pre-paid\nservices which crystallized during the year itself.\"\n10). \"The DRP, Ahmedabad has erred

HINDUSTAN COLAS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing the deduction of Rs.2,50,48,599 claimed by the Appellant u/s 80-IB of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the bituminous products produced by the Appellant cannot be regarded as 'mineral oil' for the purpose of Section 80IB

HINDUSTAN COLAS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing the deduction of Rs.2,50,48,599 claimed by the Appellant u/s 80-IB of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the bituminous products produced by the Appellant cannot be regarded as 'mineral oil' for the purpose of Section 80IB

M/S. HINDUSTAN COLAS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(1) (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing the deduction of Rs.2,50,48,599 claimed by the Appellant u/s 80-IB of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the bituminous products produced by the Appellant cannot be regarded as 'mineral oil' for the purpose of Section 80IB

DY. CIT. CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN COLAS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing the deduction of Rs.2,50,48,599 claimed by the Appellant u/s 80-IB of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the bituminous products produced by the Appellant cannot be regarded as 'mineral oil' for the purpose of Section 80IB

HINDUSTAN COLAS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing the deduction of Rs.2,50,48,599 claimed by the Appellant u/s 80-IB of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the bituminous products produced by the Appellant cannot be regarded as 'mineral oil' for the purpose of Section 80IB

DY. CIT. CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN COLAS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing the deduction of Rs.2,50,48,599 claimed by the Appellant u/s 80-IB of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the bituminous products produced by the Appellant cannot be regarded as 'mineral oil' for the purpose of Section 80IB

HINDUSTAN COLAS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing the deduction of Rs.2,50,48,599 claimed by the Appellant u/s 80-IB of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the bituminous products produced by the Appellant cannot be regarded as 'mineral oil' for the purpose of Section 80IB

HINDUSTAN COLAS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing the deduction of Rs.2,50,48,599 claimed by the Appellant u/s 80-IB of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the bituminous products produced by the Appellant cannot be regarded as 'mineral oil' for the purpose of Section 80IB