TWINSTAR JUPITER CO-OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 30(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3654/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Twinstar Jupiter Co- V/S. Income Tax Officer, Operative Hsg Soc Ltd बिाम Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai 41 Jupiter Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai Cufe Parade, Colaba, 400051 Mumbai 400005. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaabt0015E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ashok Patil राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

Section 801E There was no such provision to disallow the claim of deduction u/s.80IP. Further, even after the amendment such

DINDOSHI ONKAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowing the deduction u/s.80P within the scope and ambit of Section 143(1)(a) in the A.Y.2014- 15 and 2015-16. The primafacie adjustment as provided in Section 143(1)(a) Clause v was with respect to deductions claimed u/s.10AA, 801A, 801AB, 801B, 801C, 80ID or Section 801E

CONTROL PRINT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400059 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, MUMBAI-400020

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 801E of the Act and all relevant details in respect thereof were filed. 3. The learned PCIT erred in holding that the AO has not conducted any enquiry on cash deposit of Rs.6,87,500 in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during demonetization period and disallowance

TRIDEV-II CO. OP. HSG. SOC.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-41(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s.143(1)(a) because the\nadjustment which was permissible was with respect to 10AA, 80AIA, 801AB,\n80IB, 80IC, 80ID or Section 801E

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance in the revised return. The Assessing Officer further conveniently ignored the deductions of ₹.8.165 crores claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income. 23. As far as the technical glitch and last hour rush and consequently whether the return filed by the assessee with a delay of two minutes can be considered as the return filed

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance in the revised return. The Assessing Officer further conveniently ignored the deductions of ₹.8.165 crores claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income. 23. As far as the technical glitch and last hour rush and consequently whether the return filed by the assessee with a delay of two minutes can be considered as the return filed

DCIT(CC)-2(4),MUMBAI., MUMBAI. vs. MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

801E units.\"\nThe sole grievance raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of\nthe allocation of Research and Development (R&D) expenditure to the units\neligible for deduction under section 80-IE of the Act.\nThe brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from\nthe record, are: The assessee is engaged in the business

DCIT(CC)-2(4),MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

801E units.\"\nThe sole grievance raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of\nthe allocation of Research and Development (R&D) expenditure to the units\neligible for deduction under section 80-IE of the Act.\nThe brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from\nthe record, are: The assessee is engaged in the business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: the Hon'ble Bombay High Court" 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record and examine the position in law in view of the submissions advanced.

801E of the Act without appreciating the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT on this issue in assessee's case in respect of A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 has not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court" 4. We have heard both the sides, perused

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: the Hon'ble Bombay High Court" 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record and examine the position in law in view of the submissions advanced.

801E of the Act without appreciating the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT on this issue in assessee's case in respect of A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 has not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court" 4. We have heard both the sides, perused

CIPLA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B (Revenue) : (Assessee) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B : (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

801E(2)(i) 15 Kumrek, Rangpo, East Sikkim 737132 Cipla Ltd. (Indore Unit I & unit 2010-11 Formulations 10AA 16 2) Phase II Sector 3 Pithampur 454775 4 ITA No. 2639 & 2732/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. Cipla Ltd. 8. The assessee company has also submitted that apart from its manufacturing unit, it also gets manufacturing done through Loan Licensee Manufacturers

DCIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI vs. CIPLA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B (Revenue) : (Assessee) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B : (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

801E(2)(i) 15 Kumrek, Rangpo, East Sikkim 737132 Cipla Ltd. (Indore Unit I & unit 2010-11 Formulations 10AA 16 2) Phase II Sector 3 Pithampur 454775 4 ITA No. 2639 & 2732/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. Cipla Ltd. 8. The assessee company has also submitted that apart from its manufacturing unit, it also gets manufacturing done through Loan Licensee Manufacturers

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 24(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. FOCE INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer-24(1)(1), Foce Industries, 6Th Floor, 4, Kingston, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Shashtri Nagar Lane-I, Lalbaugh, Parel, Lokhandwala Complex, Mumbai. Andheri West, Mumbai Pan : Aafff0162K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed and added to the total income in the hand of the assessee firm for the AY 2018-19..” 4 5. Before the Ld CIT(A), the assessee strongly refuted various deficiencies pointed out by the assessing officer. It reiterated following facts before Ld CIT(A):- “2.1.The appellant had fulfilled all the conditions prescribed u/s.80IE in understated manner