PATEL ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

house, switch yard and Power Water Way (Lot-III) the technical aspects of the Work were discussed on 24/01/2003 after the issue of the letter of Intent on 30/12/02 in presence of your representative and accordingly the same was reflected therein. The work order as issued will automatically supersede the to! in this respect. Please confirm the unconditional acceptance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

house, switch yard and Power Water Way (Lot-III) the technical aspects of the Work were discussed on 24/01/2003 after the issue of the letter of Intent on 30/12/02 in presence of your representative and accordingly the same was reflected therein. The work order as issued will automatically supersede the to! in this respect. Please confirm the unconditional acceptance

ACIT/DCIT 31(2), MUMBAI vs. PATEL PRATIBHA JV, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

housing, particularly, for the middle income group citizens. To provided in sub-Section (10) such as specifying date by which the undertaking must commence the developing and construction also providing for the minimum area of plot of land on which such project would be put up as well as maximum built up area of each of the residential units

ITO WD 3(1), THANE vs. NCC SMC INDU JV, THANE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

801A( 4). 4.1 At the outset, it is worthwhile to mention that it is an established legal position that the nature of entries in the Books of Account are not relevant for taxability of a particular receipt or otherwise. Similarly as to whether assessee has paid works contract tax or not, or tax has been deducted on such receipts

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

ASST CIT CEN CIR 25, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

801A(4) is claimed. Copies of Agreement have been submitted by the appellant and the same have been place on record. A brief summary of the Agreement is as shown hereunder: 1) Koyna Project EXTENSION OF HEAD RACE TUNNEL (HRT) FOR WATER SUPPLY AND IRRIGATION IN KOYNA PROJECT (Government of Maharashtra - Irrigation Department)  The construction of extension of Head Race

BHINMAL CONTRACTORS PROPERTY & LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

House Ground Floor, Dr. C.H.Street Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 002 PAN/GIR No.AABCB4536C Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sanjay Kapadia Revenue by Shri T.A. Khan Date of Hearing 20/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement 26/04/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-10/10/2012 for A.Y.2004-05

M/S. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CEN CIR 24 & 26, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

House and Websters Dictionaries, as also in the Law Lexicon dictionary, to support its contention that it alone can be regarded as the developer of the facility. The assessee before lower authorities submitted that it is the developer who brought about the ready facility which was hitherto not available. In its development efforts it has enabled the respective authority

M/S. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CEN CIR 24 & 26, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

House and Websters Dictionaries, as also in the Law Lexicon dictionary, to support its contention that it alone can be regarded as the developer of the facility. The assessee before lower authorities submitted that it is the developer who brought about the ready facility which was hitherto not available. In its development efforts it has enabled the respective authority

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

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

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

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

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL - 1, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

housing or other activities being a integral part of highway project. ii) A water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system. iii) A port , airport, inland waterway (inland port or navigational channel in the sea) 4. Thus, as per the provisions of the Act, deduction u/s 801A is allowable only

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