ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief

ITO WD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNNOSOURCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief

LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMNE TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad: A.Y : 2006-07

5 Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. ultra vires the provisions of Section 263 of the Act inasmuch as the conditions precedent therein were not satisfied. Section 263 of the Act provides that the Commissioner can revise the order passed by the Assessing Officer within two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised

ECHJAY INDUSTRIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

reassessment is quashed, the adjudication of the various additions made on merits becomes academic in nature and we refrain to give our opinion on the same. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee on the validity of reopening are allowed. M/s. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. 3. ADDITION MADE TOWARDS VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF WORK IN PROGRESS AND FINISHED GOODS

SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result assessee’s appeals for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2005-06 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasadsiemens Information Systems V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Limited Tax, 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, 7(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Raod Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 018 Pan : Aaacs 9788 E (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

5 ITA Nos.2563/Mum/2007 & ITA.No.2702/MUM/2007& ITA.No.6299/MUM/2011 & ITA.No.4165/Mum/2013 Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 200–02 and 2002–03 in ITA.No.4180/Mum/2005 and ITA.No.736/Mum/2006 dated 07.01.2009 held that the assessee will be free to move application for rectification as prescribed in section 155(13) as and when the export proceeds are realized as per the procedure

SIEMENS TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 7, MUMBAI

In the result assessee’s appeals for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2005-06 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasadsiemens Information Systems V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Limited Tax, 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, 7(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Raod Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 018 Pan : Aaacs 9788 E (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

5 ITA Nos.2563/Mum/2007 & ITA.No.2702/MUM/2007& ITA.No.6299/MUM/2011 & ITA.No.4165/Mum/2013 Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 200–02 and 2002–03 in ITA.No.4180/Mum/2005 and ITA.No.736/Mum/2006 dated 07.01.2009 held that the assessee will be free to move application for rectification as prescribed in section 155(13) as and when the export proceeds are realized as per the procedure

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

5,36,766/- has already been reduced from the income while computing the total income for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 10A. Whereas the amount of Rs. 4,92,91,000/- is the amount written off of advance received from debtors and accordingly is business income only.” 6.1. In the same submission, to justify its claim of deduction

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

5,36,766/- has already been reduced from the income while computing the total income for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 10A. Whereas the amount of Rs. 4,92,91,000/- is the amount written off of advance received from debtors and accordingly is business income only.” 6.1. In the same submission, to justify its claim of deduction

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

5,36,766/- has already been reduced from the income while computing the total income for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 10A. Whereas the amount of Rs. 4,92,91,000/- is the amount written off of advance received from debtors and accordingly is business income only.” 6.1. In the same submission, to justify its claim of deduction

BLUE STAR INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Blue Star Infotech Ltd. Dcit Circle-6(1), 8Th Floor, The Great Oasis, Plot No. Mumbai. D-13, Midc, Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacb6385J (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceeding, the AO disallowed the set of loss of Rs. 40,29,444/- from the HNG unit against the eligible unit under section 10A. Aggrieved by the order of re-assessment the assessee challenged the re- opening of the assessment as well as addition of Rs. 40,29,444/- added by way of denying the set-off of loses

LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

5,032,229,700 Development Expenses Administrati 1,286,392,560 536,071,286 1,822,463,846 on & Other Expenses 11. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the finding of the Assessing Officer both on legal grounds as well as on merits following the directions of the DRP for the A.Y.2009-10. 12. Before us, ld. Sr. Counsel

LARSEN & TOURBRO INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

5,032,229,700 Development Expenses Administrati 1,286,392,560 536,071,286 1,822,463,846 on & Other Expenses 11. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the finding of the Assessing Officer both on legal grounds as well as on merits following the directions of the DRP for the A.Y.2009-10. 12. Before us, ld. Sr. Counsel

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

10A of the IT Act read as under: C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., "(9) Where during any previous year, the ownership or the beneficial interest in the undertaking is transferred by any means, the deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to the assessee for the assessment year relevant to such previous year and the subsequent

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

10A of the IT Act read as under: C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., "(9) Where during any previous year, the ownership or the beneficial interest in the undertaking is transferred by any means, the deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to the assessee for the assessment year relevant to such previous year and the subsequent

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

10A of the IT Act read as under: C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., "(9) Where during any previous year, the ownership or the beneficial interest in the undertaking is transferred by any means, the deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to the assessee for the assessment year relevant to such previous year and the subsequent

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

10A of the IT Act read as under: C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., "(9) Where during any previous year, the ownership or the beneficial interest in the undertaking is transferred by any means, the deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to the assessee for the assessment year relevant to such previous year and the subsequent

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

10A of the IT Act read as under: C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., "(9) Where during any previous year, the ownership or the beneficial interest in the undertaking is transferred by any means, the deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be allowed to the assessee for the assessment year relevant to such previous year and the subsequent