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.

80A(5), the assessee is estopped from making claim under section 80P of the Act. 6. Submissions made by rival sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) wherein assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act has been denied. Before proceeding further to adjudicate

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

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

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

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

5. Assuming without admitting that sub-clause ii) of clause (a) of f clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case, section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case, section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case, the quantum of deduction claimed

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowed the same, vide orders dated 27-02-2009. The CIT(A) also relied upon decision in the case of ITO v. Kanchan Oil Industries Limited (2005) 92 TTJ 739(Kol. Trib.) and Khinvasara Investment Private Limited v. JCIT (2007) 109 TTJ 341(Pune. Trib) 7.Aggrieved by the orders dated 27-02-2009 of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee

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

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

In the result, the ITA No

5, the Assessing Officer has posed the following question for our adjudication: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB(9) of the Act holding ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 10 of 105 that

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

In the result, the ITA No

5, the Assessing Officer has posed the following question for our adjudication: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB(9) of the Act holding ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 10 of 105 that

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

5, the Assessing Officer has posed the following question for our adjudication: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB(9) of the Act holding ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 10 of 105 that

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(5

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(5

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(5

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

5] Further, the language appearing in section 80-1B is 'profit and gains derived from any business'. Therefore, the test of proximity, i.e., direct nexus with the industrial activity is not necessary while claiming a deduction under section 80-1B. [Para 5.2] In the circumstances, the judgment of the Tribunal deserved to be sustained." The Hon'ble Madhya

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

5] Further, the language appearing in section 80-1B is 'profit and gains derived from any business'. Therefore, the test of proximity, i.e., direct nexus with the industrial activity is not necessary while claiming a deduction under section 80-1B. [Para 5.2] In the circumstances, the judgment of the Tribunal deserved to be sustained." The Hon'ble Madhya

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(5

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. ()

5) of Section 80- IA of the Act is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of Section 80-IA of the Act by treating ‘eligible business’ as the ‘only source of income’.” 25 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 21. We notice that sub-section (3) of section 80HHE which deals with the manner

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