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

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 of the country has thrown

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

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 of the country has thrown

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

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 of the country has thrown

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

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 of the country has thrown

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

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 of the country has thrown

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

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 of the country has thrown

JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HARSHAD S. MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (C)- 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35E(1) or (2) to keep the interests of the department alive. If the officers’ view is the correct one, it will no doubt be finally upheld and the revenue will get the duty, though after some delay which such procedure would entail. It is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalatable