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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

80J ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer's order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the revenue for the assessment year 1977-78 as there is no tax effect ?" in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The revenue will

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

80J ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer's order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the revenue for the assessment year 1977-78 as there is no tax effect ?" in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The revenue will

ACIT CC 39, MUMBAI vs. UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, M/S United Liner Agencies Of Cc-6(4), R. No.32(1), India P. Ltd. बनाम/ Ground Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Office Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road No.801, C-Wing, Behind Mumbai-400020 Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacu5182C Shri Narendra Kumar Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Y. P. Trivedi & Usha Dalal

reassessment proceedings were initiated mainly for disallowance of the deduction as in the opinion of revenue assessee is not entitled to such deduction and the reasons as stated in the assessment order for making disallowance of the deduction are as under: (1) Deduction under section 80 IA is available only to the structures situated at the ports and assessee

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

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

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment order of the AO be set aside as bad in law.” 22. Similar issue was considered by us in the Assessee’s Appeal in Ground No 6 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and held as under: - “58. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that during the year under consideration assessee has sold

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. M/S ACE PLASTICS , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted before the AO that it had rightly claimed deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act and only on the basis of part of the manufacturing activity being done from outside unit, the deduction u/s. 80IB could not be disallowed. However, the AO was not satisfied with the assessee's submission. The AO mentioned that since

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

reassessment order does not survive for reasons stated herein above, grounds of appeal raised on merits does not require separate adjudication. However, issues involved in present appeal are also found in other assessment years appeal heard by this bench, hence considering such facts, other grounds of appeal as raised by assessee are also discussed on merits in subsequent paras

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

reassessment order does not survive for reasons stated herein above, grounds of appeal raised on merits does not require separate adjudication. However, issues involved in present appeal are also found in other assessment years appeal heard by this bench, hence considering such facts, other grounds of appeal as raised by assessee are also discussed on merits in subsequent paras

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

reassessment. It means the merits were not tested. 5. Similarly for AY 2004-05, the AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2006, despite the fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 30.11.2006. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act passed assessment