TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

35A and 35AB reveals in no uncertain terms, that the purpose behind these provisions is to provide impetus for research, development of new technologies, obtaining patent rights, copyrights and knowhow." 12. In view of above referred two decisions and by applying the same to the facts on hand, we have no hesitation in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction

DCIT-14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TITAN LABORATORIES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

35A and 35AB reveals in no uncertain terms, that the purpose behind these provisions is to provide impetus for research, development of new technologies, obtaining patent rights, copyrights and knowhow." 12. In view of above referred two decisions and by applying the same to the facts on hand, we have no hesitation in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction

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

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular is extracted below: “56.1 The business and economic environment

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 allowed as indicated above

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

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re-organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular is extracted below: “56.1 The business and economic environment

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

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular is extracted below: “56.1 The business and economic environment

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

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular is extracted below: “56.1 The business and economic environment

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

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular is extracted below: “56.1 The business and economic environment

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

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular is extracted below: “56.1 The business and economic environment

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

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular is extracted below: “56.1 The business and economic environment

JT. CIT (OSD)- 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 allowed as indicated above

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

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re-organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular is extracted below: “56.1 The business and economic environment

DEEPALI KIRAN POTNIS,KALYAN vs. ITO. INT. TAX, WARD-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

35A before the 24-1-2020 Dispute Resolution Panel on [within the time limit prescribed in section 144C(2)] 9. Intimation given to the AO regarding the objections filed 27-1-2020 before the DRP on 10. Final Assessment order u/s. 143(3)/144C(3) passed by the 27-1-2020 Assessing Officer on 11. Time period

ECL FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

35A on 30th January, 2017. 10. Upon assessee’s objection DRP passed its direction vide order dated 29.9.2017 granted part relief. The Assessing Officer passed a consequential order vide order dated 28.11.2017. In its grievance against the aforesaid order the assessee first raised the issue that order passed under section 92CA(3) is time barred. Since it is a legal

RAVINDRA K. RESHAWALA,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 17(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleravindra K. Reshamwala V. Dcit- Circle 17(1) 7/A Pil Court, 111 M.K. Road Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaafr2227C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Piyush Chhajed & Shri Sumit Mantri Department Represented By : Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 35AC The Trustee accepted that all the expenses were bogus and the donations received in cheques were returned in cash to all the donors after deducting nominal commission. Consequently, Survey Action conducted by the Investigation wing on some of the donors have conclusively proved that the Trust indeed returned by donations in cash," 4. During scrutiny proceedings, authorised representative