DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue." AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-.” 5.4. Ld. CIT(A) had allowed

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. N R AGARWAL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO on addition of enhancement made by CIT(A) for Rs.4,15,89,737/- and 801A for Rs.1,95,87,102/- is deleted. 5.4 With respect to penalty levied on addition made u/s.14A for Rs.1,00,175/-, it is observed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied in view of decision

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. N R AGARWAL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO on addition of enhancement made by CIT(A) for Rs.4,15,89,737/- and 801A for Rs.1,95,87,102/- is deleted. 5.4 With respect to penalty levied on addition made u/s.14A for Rs.1,00,175/-, it is observed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied in view of decision

ACIT-2(3)(1)Q, MUMBAI vs. N R AGARWAL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO on addition of enhancement made by CIT(A) for Rs.4,15,89,737/- and 801A for Rs.1,95,87,102/- is deleted. 5.4 With respect to penalty levied on addition made u/s.14A for Rs.1,00,175/-, it is observed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied in view of decision

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. N R AGARWAL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO on addition of enhancement made by CIT(A) for Rs.4,15,89,737/- and 801A for Rs.1,95,87,102/- is deleted. 5.4 With respect to penalty levied on addition made u/s.14A for Rs.1,00,175/-, it is observed that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied in view of decision

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGINE & HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 80HHC by invoking the provisions of Section 801B(13) r.w.s 801A(9). GROUND IV: The CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the AO under Section 271

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against\nthe Appellant.\nAll the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves\nfor leave to add, amend, vary, withdraw, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid\ngrounds at any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter with the\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

801A of the Act.\n8. Disallowance of unsecured loans/security deposits\n8. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO/DRP has erred in disallowing unsecured loans/security deposit amounting to\nRs 2,00,75,850 obtained by Appellant during the subject year under Section 68 of\nthe Act.\n9. Transfer Pricing adjustment - Disallowance

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 6(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S CENTURY TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, 6(1)(1) Vs. M/S Century Textiles Room No. 502, 5Th & Industrials Ltd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Century Mk Road, Bhavan, Dr. Annie Mumbai-400020. Beasant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2659Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jogendra Singh.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Chaitanya D. Joshi.Ar Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A), Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

801A is Rs. 16,30,87,699/- as against Rs. 20,38,59,686/- (-) 20,38,91,911/- Rs.32,325/- claimed by the assessee company. Therefore, an addition of Rs.4,07,71,917/- (Rs. 20,38,59,686/- - Rs. 16,30,87,699) is made to the total income of the assessee company. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Revenue Ground No. Issues 1 to 4 Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act 5 Disallowance u/s 40(a)9ia) on year end provisions 6 Deleting the addition on account of CENVAT Credit ignoring the fact that the addition was made on net-basis and assessee, itself, withdrew its ground before ITAT

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Revenue Ground No. Issues 1 to 4 Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act 5 Disallowance u/s 40(a)9ia) on year end provisions 6 Deleting the addition on account of CENVAT Credit ignoring the fact that the addition was made on net-basis and assessee, itself, withdrew its ground before ITAT

HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Addl Cit Range 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Rd, Worli Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Cir- 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Rd, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1201R

801A of the Income Tax Act. 1961. ITA No. 5242, 5302/MUM/2013 Hindalco Industries Ltd,; A.Y.2007-08 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was justified in holding that for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act in respect of Birla Copper Power Plant

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Addl Cit Range 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Rd, Worli Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Cir- 6(3) M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd 5Th Floor, Room No. 522, 3Rd Floor, Century Bhavan, Dr A.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Rd, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach1201R

801A of the Income Tax Act. 1961. ITA No. 5242, 5302/MUM/2013 Hindalco Industries Ltd,; A.Y.2007-08 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was justified in holding that for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act in respect of Birla Copper Power Plant

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

271(1)(c) of the Act 2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of appeal in relation to the following issues: (a) Ground No. (i) & (ii): pertaining to disallowance of INR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (b) Ground No. (iii): pertaining to disallowance

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

801A of the Act of Rs. 48,79,600/- disallowed on account of common expenses. 8. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act of Rs. 48,79,600/- disallowed on account of common expenses relying on the decision

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

penalty proceedings\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of\nappeal in relation to the following issues:\n(a) Ground No. (i) & (ii): pertaining to disallowance of\nINR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges\nunder Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\n(b)\nGround

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

penalty proceedings\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n2.2. In ITA No. 1919/Mum/2016, the Revenue has raised grounds of\nappeal in relation to the following issues:\n(a) Ground No. (i) & (ii): pertaining to disallowance of\nINR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges\nunder Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\n(b) Ground

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

801A of the Act, income arising should be business income of the eligible undertaking, i.e. telecom undertaking of the Appellant in the present case 2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the learned AO in excluding the following incomes while computing deduction u/s