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

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

80A and section 80AB which was in Chapter VIA 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 in Chapter

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 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.,,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

DATTA PRASAD SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(3)(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

1) to (4)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain in- comes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder

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

M/S. INDAGRO FOODS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - (OSD) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

1) can only apply to and limit the amount of deduction In case of an Export House but cannot affect the eligibility of the Appellant for claiming the deduction. 2.3 in not appreciating that the Export House is entitled to a deduction under Section 80HHC as amended by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 since loss before export Incentives

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

RAJ TARANG HOUSING SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,WARD 32(3)(1), 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

DCIT- 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JSW INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowance made u/s 80IA without appreciating the fact that the assessee made no such claim in its return u/s 139(1) which was mandatory in view of the provisions of 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

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

1 to section 115JB, relying on the special bench decision in the case of ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 9 of 105 VireetInvestments Pvt Ltd (TTA No 502/Del/2012) and ITAT order in the appellants own case for A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2012-13 dated 28.09.2018, I direct the AO to restrict

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

In the result, the ITA No

1 to section 115JB, relying on the special bench decision in the case of ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 9 of 105 VireetInvestments Pvt Ltd (TTA No 502/Del/2012) and ITAT order in the appellants own case for A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2012-13 dated 28.09.2018, I direct the AO to restrict