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

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

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after all the machines

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after all the machines

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

801A(4) of the Act. Reference in this regard is also made to para 56 of the ITAT's order rendered in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 56. With regard to CIT(A)S observation the A. Y.2010-11 at page 42 to the effect that the so called 'Rail System

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

801A(4) of the Act. Reference in this regard is also made to para 56 of the ITAT's order rendered in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd., which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 56. With regard to CIT(A)S observation the A. Y.2010-11 at page 42 to the effect that the so called 'Rail System

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

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

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 which forms part of the block of assets will cease to be so. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 45,681 made by the AO is deleted. As a result, ground No. 4 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 30. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the adjustment

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 which forms part of the block of assets will cease to be so. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 45,681 made by the AO is deleted. As a result, ground No. 4 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 30. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the adjustment

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

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

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(OSD) RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt. CIT to exercise all powers and perform

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, SPL. RG.32, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt. CIT to exercise all powers and perform

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt. CIT to exercise all powers and perform

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt. CIT to exercise all powers and perform