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

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

1)", "Section 139(4)", "Section 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

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

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10): 20. The assessee has developed a building in SRA project named “Blue Mountain”. The profits of the project have been offered to tax from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards based on sale of flats in the respective assessment years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10): 20. The assessee has developed a building in SRA project named “Blue Mountain”. The profits of the project have been offered to tax from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards based on sale of flats in the respective assessment years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10): 20. The assessee has developed a building in SRA project named “Blue Mountain”. The profits of the project have been offered to tax from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards based on sale of flats in the respective assessment years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10): 20. The assessee has developed a building in SRA project named “Blue Mountain”. The profits of the project have been offered to tax from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards based on sale of flats in the respective assessment years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10): 20. The assessee has developed a building in SRA project named “Blue Mountain”. The profits of the project have been offered to tax from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards based on sale of flats in the respective assessment years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

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

1 to Section 115JB(2), is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated under section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Thus, in the light of the above decisions, ground No.2 of the appeal by the assessee is allowed.” 10. We heard the DR. The facts for year under consideration being similar, in our considered view the issue is covered

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

1 to Section 115JB(2), is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated under section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Thus, in the light of the above decisions, ground No.2 of the appeal by the assessee is allowed.” 10. We heard the DR. The facts for year under consideration being similar, in our considered view the issue is covered

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

1) of section 80A clearly states that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his “gross total income”, the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Energy (supra) is clearly applicable to Assessee

ANUH PHARMA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1) of the Act, the\nassessee had duly disallowed the expenses of CSR / Donation in\ncomputing the Income from business and Profession which is\nclearly evident from the computation of income attached above.\n\n1.6 As per the separate chapter \"Chapter VIA - Deduction to be\nmade in computing total income\". Section 80A

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, , KALYAN vs. M/S ASB INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

80A and section 80AB which was in Chapter VI- A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates that the intention of Parliament it is to be regarded as an exemption and not a deduction. The Act of Parliament in consciously retaining this section

STERLING COURT F WING CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

sections": [ "154", "143(1)", "80P(2)(d)", "80P", "139(1)", "80A(5)", "80AC", "80IA", "80IB", "80IAB", "80IC", "80ID", "80IE", "143(1)(a)(v)" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance

ORBIT EXPORTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 80A(5) only requires filing of return, but nowhere it suggest that claim should be made in the original return and not by way of original return, further when the original return of income was filed within the due date, then the revised return filed, thereafter before completion of assessment proceedings is to be considered by the Assessing Officer

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

STERLING COURT F WING CO -OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly\nallowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations.\n16. In combined result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed in terms\nof our aforesaid observations

80A(5) r.w.s. 139(1) of\nthe Act, any deduction claimed under Chapter-VIA which includes section 80P\nalso is not admissible unless the return of income is filed on or before the due\ndate specified under section 139(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also mentioned\nthat the interest income received by the assessee from Saraswat

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

1 to Section 115JB(2), is to be made\nwithout resorting to the computation as contemplated under section\n14A r.w.r. 8D. Thus, in the light of the above decisions, ground No.2\nof the appeal by the assessee is allowed.\n10. We heard the DR. The facts for year under consideration being\nsimilar, in our considered view the issue is covered