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

7. The Co-ordinate Bench gave its concluding observations and findings on the grounds raised by the revenue and found it proper to restore the issue to the file of ld. AO giving direction to considered the allowability of deduction u/s. 80-IA in the manner directed by it. Relevant paragraph in this respect are extracted below for ready reference

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

7. The Co-ordinate Bench gave its concluding observations and findings on the grounds raised by the revenue and found it proper to restore the issue to the file of ld. AO giving direction to considered the allowability of deduction u/s. 80-IA in the manner directed by it. Relevant paragraph in this respect are extracted below for ready reference

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

Appeals are partly allowed

801A which reads as under: 'Where any amount of profits and gains of an industrial undertaking or of an enterprise in the case of an assessee is claimed and allowed under this section for ITA. No. 6591 & 6549/Mum/2010 (AY 2004-05) ITA. No. 2780 & 2849/Mum/2011 (AY 2005-06) any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains

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

Appeals are partly allowed

801A which reads as under: 'Where any amount of profits and gains of an industrial undertaking or of an enterprise in the case of an assessee is claimed and allowed under this section for ITA. No. 6591 & 6549/Mum/2010 (AY 2004-05) ITA. No. 2780 & 2849/Mum/2011 (AY 2005-06) any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains

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

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. LARSEN & TOURBRO LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) & 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Aby T Vakery & Shri Amarjit Singhlarsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, N M Marg Income Tax, Circle- (5)(4), Ballard Estate, Fort Mumbai (Erstwhile Mumbai- 400001 Income Tax Officer- 2(2) Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021

reassessment proceedings require to be quashed. c. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act in view of the fact that the proceedings were initiated after four years from the end of the Assessment Year under consideration, and there was no failure

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

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

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

7. In our view, this is not a case where the assessment is sought to be reopened on the reasonable belief that income had escaped the assessment on account. This is a case wherein the assessment is sought to be reopened on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer about the manner of computation of deduction under section

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

7. In our view, this is not a case where the assessment is sought to be reopened on the reasonable belief that income had escaped the assessment on account. This is a case wherein the assessment is sought to be reopened on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer about the manner of computation of deduction under section