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

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

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

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CICLE-8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCR2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Jitendra Jain.AR Respondent by : Mr.S.N Kabra. DR Date of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

House, 121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee represented by : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Sukanya Jayaram Department represented by : Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 2 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

House, 121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee represented by : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Sukanya Jayaram Department represented by : Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 2 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

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

House, 121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 PAN: AAACT1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee represented by : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Sukanya Jayaram Department represented by : Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 2 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC Limited O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

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. 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

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

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