GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

house property\nexcluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of\nbusiness or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has\nfailed to point out corresponding provision providing for\ncomputation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding\nthe WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year.\n7. 8. We note that Section

M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR - 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing depreciation of Rs.45,681/-. 4.2. The CTT (A) ought to have held that once an asset forms part of block of assets, it loses its identity and depreciation on a particular asset cannot

THE ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property 4.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing depreciation of Rs.45,681/-. 4.2. The CTT (A) ought to have held that once an asset forms part of block of assets, it loses its identity and depreciation on a particular asset cannot

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

801A of the Act on foreign exchange gain.\nAccordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed.\"\n42.\nIn conformity, the AO, inter alia, passed the impugned final assessment\norder. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us.\n43.\nWe find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's\nown case for the assessment year

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

801A of the Act on foreign exchange gain.\nAccordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed.\"\n42. In conformity, the AO, inter alia, passed the impugned final assessment\norder. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us.\n43. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's\nown case for the assessment year

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Addl Cit Range 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Rd, Worli Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Cir- 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Rd, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1201R

801A of the Income Tax Act. 1961. ITA No. 5242, 5302/MUM/2013 Hindalco Industries Ltd,; A.Y.2007-08 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was justified in holding that for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act in respect of Birla Copper Power Plant

HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Addl Cit Range 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Rd, Worli Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Cir- 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Rd, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1201R

801A of the Income Tax Act. 1961. ITA No. 5242, 5302/MUM/2013 Hindalco Industries Ltd,; A.Y.2007-08 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was justified in holding that for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act in respect of Birla Copper Power Plant

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue\nare dismissed

Property and Land Developers\nP Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 (Bom)\n4. Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161\ntaxmann.com 222 (Guj)\n7. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and\nhave gone through the documents placed on record,\njudgments cited before us and the orders passed by the\nrevenue authorities.\n8. From the records

EFFICIENT ILLUMINATION PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project. (c) a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid management system; waste (d) a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port navigational channel in the sea. Explanation to Section 80-IA As per the agreements entered by the Company, states

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore\nstands dismissed

house property as\nper rent control act, however, no relief was granted giving effect to the order of\nLd. CIT(A) and the assessee has also not contested the same. Ld. AR on this issue\nhas placed her reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case\nof Tip Top Typography. It is also submitted that

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. Thus, it was held by the AO that the assessee company failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in respect of share capital received by it and accordingly the AO treated the amount of Rs. 5,10,00,000/- received by the assessee company as income of the assessee company

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

801A of the I.T. Act in respect of the Rail System at Raipur of Rs.15,57,09,929/- and Rs.13,05,18,489/- at Hotgi, without appreciating the fact that the Rail System was not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 80-IA(4) (i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and that the assessee

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 6(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S CENTURY TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LTD , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, 6(1)(1) Vs. M/S Century Textiles Room No. 502, 5Th & Industrials Ltd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Century Mk Road, Bhavan, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Beasant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2659Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jogendra Singh.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Chaitanya D. Joshi.Ar Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A), Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

property, and calculated the disallowance of Rs.9,05,805/-.(iii) the AO found that the assessee has received exempted income of Rs.3,27,23,901/- and claimed exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act and Rs. 3,20,65,557/- u/s 10(35) of the Act. Whereas the assessee has made addition of interest of Rs. 44 lakhs & indirect expenditure

SAROVAR HOTELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7348/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sarovar Hotels Dcit Circle 3(3), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th P.Ltd 42 Mittal बिधम/ Fl., R. No. 609, M. K. Chambers, Nariman Vs. Road, Point, Mumbai- 400 Mumbai-400 020 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No.Aaacs8083L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

801A of the Act reads as "Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertaking or enterprise engaged in infrastructure development etc." which, to our humble understanding, express the intention of the legislature that the exemption therein section 80IA of the Act is available for the undertakings or enterprise which are engaged in the business of infrastructure development

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

801A(8) market value means (1) the price that such\ngoods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market\", what is to be seen\nand tested with comparable is the price that the electricity generated by the\neligible unit would ordinarily fetch in the open market if sold and not the rate at\nwhich non-eligible unit could procure

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

801A(8) market value means (1) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market", what is to be seen and tested with comparable is the price that the electricity generated by the eligible unit would ordinarily fetch in the open market if sold and not the rate at which non-eligible unit could procure

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

House Mumbai N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 001 PAN : AAACL0140P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr.Advocate Department represented by Smt. Shailaja Rai,(CIT DR) Date of hearing 13/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/04/2022 O R D E R 2 Larsen & Toubro Asstt.Yrs 2001-02 & 2001-02 Per: S.Rifaur Rahman (AM): These cross appeals filed by the assessee