ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATUL PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

80A(5) also prescribes that if assessee fail to make any claim in its ROI for deduction u/s (10/10AA/10B/10BA) then no deduction shall be allowed. Likewise, section 80AC bars an assessee from claiming deduction u/s 80IA/80-IAB/80-IB/80IC/80-ID/80IE, unless it has furnished ROI before the due date of filing the ROI, which in this case the assessee failed to do after

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

80A(6) of the Income Tax Act, vide Finance Act, 2009? - 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)is correct in not appreciating the fact and position of law that comparability of the specified domestic transaction (SDT) with uncontrolled transaction has to be established in terms of parameters contained

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

80A(6) of the Income Tax Act, vide Finance Act, 2009? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)is correct in not appreciating the fact and position of law that comparability of the specified domestic transaction (SDT) with uncontrolled transaction has to be established in terms of parameters contained

ASST CIT CIR 23, MUMBAI vs. OBEROI REALITY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cir.23, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 002 ... Appellant

property – Rs.13,51,076/-, (ii) income from business – Rs.68,18,56,583/-; and, income from other sources – Rs.14,23,15,933/-. The total taxable income has been computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.14,36,67,009/- after allowing deduction u/s 5 M/s. Oberoi Realty Ltd. ITA No. 6044/Mum/2013 & CO No. 6/Mum/2015 80IB(10) of the Act of Rs.68

JUPITER CONSTRUCTIONS,VIRAR vs. ACIT CC 3 , THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () - Assessment Year 2010-11 - Assessment Year 2011-12 - Assessment Year 2012-13

properties developed by it and in the returns of income filed in pursuance to notice issued under section 153C of the Act, the assessee offered additional income representing on-money received in the relevant assessment years. However, against the additional income so declared, assessee had claimed deduction towards expenses as well as deduction under section

JUPITER CONSTRUCTIONS,VIRAR vs. ACIT CC-3, , THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () - Assessment Year 2010-11 - Assessment Year 2011-12 - Assessment Year 2012-13

properties developed by it and in the returns of income filed in pursuance to notice issued under section 153C of the Act, the assessee offered additional income representing on-money received in the relevant assessment years. However, against the additional income so declared, assessee had claimed deduction towards expenses as well as deduction under section

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE vs. M/S. AMEYA BUILDERS & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

Property Vs Developers At M. Baria Business House, P.P. Marg, Virat Nagar, Virar (West) – 401301 [PAN: AAFFA9223L] ……………. Respondent ITA Nos. 1936-1939/Mum/2022 & ITA No. 2219-2222/Mum/2022 AY 2010-11, AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi For the Respondent/Department : Smt. R.M. Madhavi Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Conclusion of hearing : 10.03.2023 Pronouncement

M/S. AMEYA BUILDERS & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE

Property Vs Developers At M. Baria Business House, P.P. Marg, Virat Nagar, Virar (West) – 401301 [PAN: AAFFA9223L] ……………. Respondent ITA Nos. 1936-1939/Mum/2022 & ITA No. 2219-2222/Mum/2022 AY 2010-11, AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi For the Respondent/Department : Smt. R.M. Madhavi Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Conclusion of hearing : 10.03.2023 Pronouncement

PRIYA KAPIL TODARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

80A(1) mandates that such deductions be computed from gross total income, excluding long-term capital gains. In this case, after setting off business losses, the appellant's gross total income comprised taxable long-term capital gains. Judicial precedents, such as CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973), affirm that deductions under Chapter VI-A cannot be allowed when gross total

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. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

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. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

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. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

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. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

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. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

AVINASH S SADAMATE, ACIT, CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RASHMI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Revenue's appeal and Cross\nObjection are dismissed

80A(5) would not be applicable. In any\ncase of the matter, the revenue does not dispute the fact that the assessee is\notherwise eligible to claim deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in\nrespect of the profit earned from the subject project. The additional income\noffered by the assessee because of receipt of on-money, undoubtedly, forms

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

80A(1) stipulates that while computing the total income of the assessee, there shall be allowed from the gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the chapter, the deduction specified in section 80C to 80U. Section 80B(5) defines the purposes of section VIA “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance

ACC LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT ,RG. 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section existed upto 31-3-1988 and was deleted thereafter): "(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1980 but before the 1st day of April, 1985, a further sum equal to one-half of the amount admissible under clause (ii) (exclusive

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'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section existed upto 31-3-1988 and was deleted thereafter): "(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1980 but before the 1st day of April, 1985, a further sum equal to one-half of the amount admissible under clause (ii) (exclusive

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions". This rigidity about the price being for an actual transaction has, however, been considerably relaxed when we take into account the rule 10AB 34 M/s. Reliance Industries limited which allows hypothetical price of a transaction being taken into account as well. The scheme