GURU TEGBAHADUR CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 26 (1)(5), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3946 /मुं/2019("न.व.2014-15) Raj Tarang 1 Housing Society, Shiv Vallabh Cross Road, Ashokvan, Rawalpada, Dahisar East, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 068. Pan:Aaaar-6740-H बनाम/ Vs.

disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short 'the Act') in respect of interest income received from Co-operative Bank. The assessee has also raised another ground against rejection of assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(c) of the Act. 3. The facts

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

80A(4) and shall in no case exceed the profits and gains of such undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible and gains of such undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible and gains of such undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business,is applicable to section 10A or section 10AA or business,is applicable to section

MOUNT MARY NAGARI CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

80A(5)", "Section 80AC", "Section 10A", "Section 10AA", "Section 10B", "Section 10BA", "Section 80-IA", "Section 80-IAB", "Section 80-IB", "Section 80-IC", "Section 80-ID", "Section 80-IE", "Section 80P(2)(d)" ], "issues": "Whether the claim for deduction under Section 80P can be disallowed

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance under Section 80IA of the Act anywhere in the Assessment Order. In that case, on this count alone, the Assessee would get to succeed at the threshold itself. Till the time the regular assessment proceedings were pending the possibility of the issue being taken up for scrutiny could not have been ruled out. It is not the case

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance under Section 80IA of the Act anywhere in the Assessment Order. In that case, on this count alone, the Assessee would get to succeed at the threshold itself. Till the time the regular assessment proceedings were pending the possibility of the issue being taken up for scrutiny could not have been ruled out. It is not the case

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.2.17.27.798/- made in the assessment order. Accordingly, Ground No 2 is hereby Allowed. 3.11. We further find that the similar issue had arose before this Tribunal in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.2384 & 3475/Mum/2019 and 1241/Mum/2018

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.2.17.27.798/- made in the assessment order. Accordingly, Ground No 2 is hereby Allowed. 3.11. We further find that the similar issue had arose before this Tribunal in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.2384 & 3475/Mum/2019 and 1241/Mum/2018

JT. COMM OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , CC - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RAJAMUNDRY EXPRESSWAY PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us :-

section 80A of IT. Act. 12. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground and/or add new grounds which may be necessary." 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee company electronically filed its original return of income for the Asst Year

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

80A(6)", "Section 92BA", "Section 92F", "Section 14A", "Section 115JB", "Section 41(1)" ], "issues": "The main issue revolves around the correct determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for the inter-unit transfer of power, specifically whether the rate at which the assessee purchased power from a distribution licensee is a valid comparable for benchmarking the sale of power

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs.2.17.27.798/- made in\nthe assessment order. Accordingly, Ground No 2 is hereby Allowed.\n16\nITA No. 5848 & 5935/Mum/2017\nAditya Birla Nuvo Limited\n3.11. We further find that the similar issue had arose before this Tribunal\nin the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.2384 &\n3475/Mum/2019 and 1241/Mum/2018

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 10AA(7), has to be allowed at Rs.6832,18,56,826/- and in view of the scheme and provisions of the Act, no deduction can be allowed to the assessee u,/s80IB of the Act. Therefore, claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act of Rs.698,07,88,519/- disallowed and the same is added back to the income

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

In the result, the ITA No

section 10AA(7), has to be allowed at Rs.6832,18,56,826/- and in view of the scheme and provisions of the Act, no deduction can be allowed to the assessee u,/s80IB of the Act. Therefore, claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act of Rs.698,07,88,519/- disallowed and the same is added back to the income

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 10AA(7), has to be allowed at Rs.6832,18,56,826/- and in view of the scheme and provisions of the Act, no deduction can be allowed to the assessee u,/s80IB of the Act. Therefore, claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act of Rs.698,07,88,519/- disallowed and the same is added back to the income

MEGHANA APARTMENT CO.OP.HSG.SOC.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 25(3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

disallow claim under section 80P of the Act for the years under consideration, while processing returns under section 143(1) of the Act. 6. On the contrary, learned DR supported the orders passed by learned CIT(A). 7. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record. Provisions of section 80A

MEGHANA APARTMENT CO-OP.HSG.SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 25(3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

disallow claim under section 80P of the Act for the years under consideration, while processing returns under section 143(1) of the Act. 6. On the contrary, learned DR supported the orders passed by learned CIT(A). 7. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record. Provisions of section 80A

MEGHANA APARTMENT CO.OP HSG. SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 25(3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

disallow claim under section 80P of the Act for the years under consideration, while processing returns under section 143(1) of the Act. 6. On the contrary, learned DR supported the orders passed by learned CIT(A). 7. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record. Provisions of section 80A

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

80A(6), 80IA(8) with amended explanation, 92F(ii), Rule 10B etc. Therefore, these decisions carrying precedent value cannot be lightly brushed aside by branding them as per incuriam or having been rendered sub silentio of certain relevant provisions, merely because they are against the revenue. CO Nos. 257 & 258 /Mum/2024 M/s. JSW Steel Coated Products Limited 46. Thus, upon

SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(3)(2) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sai Prerana Co-Op. Credit Income Tax Officer-17(3)(2), Society Ltd, Room No. 126, 1St Floor, 317, Puran Aasha Bldg., Gr. Fl. Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Kathe 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ruby Srivastava- Advocate & Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mrs. Sonia Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

80A(5) are not applicable to the applicable to the assessee. 8. I also noticed that the provisions of section 80AC which 8. I also noticed that the provisions of section 80AC which 8. I also noticed that the provisions of section 80AC which bars claiming of deduction if the return of income was not bars claiming of deduction