DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. 5.1.3 Further, during the assessment proceedings, it is also noted that has claimed depreciation under "Oil and Gas division" in respect of KG-D6 basin/Block of Rs 726,75,62,145/-. As has been discussed in detail under subsequent paragraphs (para 14.7) of this

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. 5.1.3 Further, during the assessment proceedings, it is also noted that has claimed depreciation under "Oil and Gas division" in respect of KG-D6 basin/Block of Rs 726,75,62,145/-. As has been discussed in detail under subsequent paragraphs (para 14.7) of this

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. 5.1.3 Further, during the assessment proceedings, it is also noted that has claimed depreciation under "Oil and Gas division" in respect of KG-D6 basin/Block of Rs 726,75,62,145/-. As has been discussed in detail under subsequent paragraphs (para 14.7) of this

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue. ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 34 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. Thus, this decision is also on the same issue taking contrary view. Under such circumstances the issue before us is as to follow which decision. Ld. CIT(DR) in course of hearing filed the decision of Tribunal

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. J.B MANGHARAM FOODS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed but that of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. J.B. Mangharam Foods Acit Cir 4(2), Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 D/1, 502 Krishna Kaveri C.H.S, Vs. Yamuna Nagar, Andheri – West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj1657R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cir 4(2), M/S. J.B. Mangharam Foods Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, D/1, 502 Krishna Kaveri C.H.S, Vs. M.K. Road, Yamuna Nagar, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj1657R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the quantum additions made in assessment order. Since the facts involved in both the appeals are identical and interlinked, hence both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order

SBI DFHI LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7433/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Sbi Dfhi Limited Asst. Cit, Range 2(1), बनाम/ 23, 3Rd Floor, Voltas House, J. N. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Heradia Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 0532 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhavin Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 15.10.2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 23.11.2010. 2 Sbi Dfhi Limited Vs. Asst. Cit 2. The Sole Issue, Agitated Per Four Grounds By The Assessee, As Under, Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Assessee’S Claim For Unabsorbed Deposition (For Rs.41,68,938/-) In The Computation Of Its’ Book Profit U/S. 115 Jb Of The Act, At Rs. 4 Lacs, I.E., At A Little Over 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded Thereon: ‘1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(L)(C) Of The Act By The Learned Assessing Officer.

u/s. 115JB. The Indian Tax Law does not recognise the concept of carry backward of losses, so that the same could only be adjusted against future profits. The law, per clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB, nowhere provides that it is the loss as per the balance-sheet which is to be adjusted, which could thus be that

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

section under which ESOP expenditure is allowable under the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act). The only provision where a company can claim the expenditure is section 37 of the ActHence, it is pertinent to test the conditions mentioned in section 37 in order to conclude whether the expenditure is allowable? Section 37 of the Act Page

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly\nallowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s. 14A read with section 8D by following judgment\nof Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities\nand Power Ltd. (supra) also order of his predecessors passed in\nearlier years. Therefore we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and\nreject the grounds taken by the Revenue.\"\n141. Further reliance is also placed on Appellants

MALCO ENERGY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

U/s 115 JB of the Act despite balance sheet and profit and loss account signed by directors and auditors. Malco Energy Ltd.; A.Y.2015-16 52. Before us assessee could not produce any authoritative pronouncement, which holds that redemption premium paid to preference shareholder is a revenue expenditure and is required to be debited to the profit and loss account. We have

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

u/s 115JB\nof the Act.\n12.3 Heard both the parties. We note that on identical set of facts, the\nHon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mangalore Refinery\nand Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd (ITA No.875 & 1237 of 2017) dated\n17.03.2020 was inter alia seized with the following question of law:\n\"2. Whether on the facts

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

u/s 115JB of the Act, as already held in Paras 8.6 & 8.7 above, since these subsidies have been held to be in the nature of capital receipt, the same cannot be added to arrive at the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Following the ratio laid down in the decisions of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) and Ankit Metal

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

u/s 115JB of the Act, as already held in Paras 8.6 & 8.7 above, since these subsidies have been held to be in the nature of capital receipt, the same cannot be added to arrive at the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Following the ratio laid down in the decisions of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) and Ankit Metal

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are\npartly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 115JB of the Act, as\nalready held in Paras 8.6 & 8.7 above, since these subsidies have been\nheld to be in the nature of capital receipt, the same cannot be added to\narrive at the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Following the ratio laid\ndown in the decisions of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd (supra)\nand Ankit Metal