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

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

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

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

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

80A(6).\n\n12. 9. On the contention raised by ld. CIT DR that ALP must be arrived\nby using one of the prescribed methods and not via hypothetical\nopportunity cost bench marks, it is noted that assessee had\nbenchmarked it based on external CUP under Rule 10B(1)(a) which was\nrejected

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 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

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.,,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

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(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

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

EDELWEISS COMMODITIES SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

House, 4th Floor Churchgate Off CST Road, Kalina Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 098. PAN : AAKCS7311R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by S/Shri Jitendra Jain, Ravikant S. Pathak & Shri A.T. Jaind Department by Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date of Hearing 17.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the assessment order

M R DEVELOPERS,VIRAR vs. ACIT, CC-3, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Property Developers, having a common partner Shri Moreshwar K Baria. The assessee filed its return of income dated 24.09.2009, declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 19.12.2011 was passed by the A.O. where the A.O. disallowed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) claimed

M R DEVELOPERS,VIRAR vs. ACIT, CC-3, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Property Developers, having a common partner Shri Moreshwar K Baria. The assessee filed its return of income dated 24.09.2009, declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 19.12.2011 was passed by the A.O. where the A.O. disallowed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) claimed