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

section 139; (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made:" 36.1 It is very clear from a bare reading of the above provisions that the return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s 153A

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 139; (b) Assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made:" 36.1 It is very clear from a bare reading of the above provisions that the return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s 153A

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue\nare dismissed

801A of the Act. The\nstatutory provisions, the circulars issued by the CBDT and\nthe legal issues arising from the various judicial\npronouncements have also been examined with reference to\nthe factual aspects of the contracts carried out by the\napplicants, in respect of which the deduction under Section\n801A has been claimed. We are of the considered opinion that

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceedings, the AO held that the deduction u/s.80-HHC of the Act had been claimed by including in the profits of business profits from Honda Unit and Kundaim unit in respect of which the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA. According to the AO allowing such a claim would amount to allowing claim for double deduction. i.e. both u/s. 801A

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceedings, the AO held that the deduction u/s.80-HHC of the Act had been claimed by including in the profits of business profits from Honda Unit and Kundaim unit in respect of which the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA. According to the AO allowing such a claim would amount to allowing claim for double deduction. i.e. both u/s. 801A

THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1) ., MUMBAI vs. RPS INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of M/s. RPS Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

THE DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1) ., MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHAH & PARIKH, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. M/S Shah & Parikh Central Circle 5(1), 2, Vallabh Niwas, Room No. 1928, 19Th Malviya Road, Floor, Air India Bldg, Vile Parle(E), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057 Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aajfs4684D Appellant .. Respondent

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,91,194/- on account of bogus

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SAKET INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of M/s. Saket Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RPS INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. M/S Rps Priti Jv, Central Circle 5(1), C-113, Shyamkamal Room No. 1928, 19Th Bldg, 27 Tejpal Road, Floor, Air India Bldg, Agarwal Market, Vile Nariman Point, Parle (E), Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aabar7230F Appellant .. Respondent

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,69,21,550/- as alleged

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRITI CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." iii.&iv Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the M/s. Priti Construction, Mumbai. addition of bogus purchase expenses

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SPECO INFRASTRUCTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

801A, hence the issue as to whether addition can be made in absence of incriminating material under the provision has not been decided conclusively by Hon'ble Supreme Court." 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,14,699/- as alleged

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN. CIR. - 38, MUMBAI

801A, as the depreciation has to be\nallowed irrespective of whether claimed or not accordingly, this ground is decided\nagainst the assessee. Ground no.7, is, thus, dismissed\n6.4 Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court as\nwell as the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for earlier AY\n1994-95, we decide this issue against

THE DY CIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOUROUS LTD., MUMBAI

801A, as the depreciation has to be\nallowed irrespective of whether claimed or not accordingly, this ground is decided\nagainst the assessee. Ground no.7, is, thus, dismissed\n6.4 Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court as\nwell as the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for earlier AY\n1994-95, we decide this issue against

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

801A, as the depreciation has to be\nallowed irrespective of whether claimed or not accordingly, this ground is decided\nagainst the assessee. Ground no.7, is, thus, dismissed\n6.4 Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court as\nwell as the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for earlier AY\n1994-95, we decide this issue against

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the\nassessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the\nliability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning\non or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\nRule 8D. (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of\nthe assessee of a previous

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the\nassessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the\nliability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning\non or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\nRule 8D. (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of\nthe assessee of a previous

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 148 of the Act is without the authority of law and cannot be sustained. 3.8. It is also pertinent to note that against this order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported in 99 taxmann.com 301 vide order dated 02/11/2018

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 148 of the Act is without the authority of law and cannot be sustained. 3.8. It is also pertinent to note that against this order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported in 99 taxmann.com 301 vide order dated 02/11/2018