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(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly\nallowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer applied the computation\nmechanism of section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and made a\nfurther adjustment of ₹76.99 crores under clause (f) of Explanation\n1 to section 115JB(2), thereby enhancing the book profits.\n13.2 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the said adjustment,\nholding that the disallowance computed under section

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 5(3)(1) Vs. M/S Serco Bpo Pvt Room No. 573, Ltd.(As Successor Of Aayakar Bhavan, Intelnet Global Service Mumbai – 400 020. Pvtltd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Vs. Dcit – 5(3)(1) Service Pvt Ltd(Earlier Room No. 573, Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, Teleperformance Tower, Mumbai – 400020. Plot Cst No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent

115J of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid reasons also, addition of the impugned share premium of Rs. 32,21,48,679, made by the AO to the book profits for the computation of MAT under section 115JB of the Act, is totally erroneous and bad in law. 6.3.2 Further, during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant

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(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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 ,, THANE vs. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1, THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRLCE-1, THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD, NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRLCE-1 , THANE

In the result, the In the result, the assessee and Revenue are are educated as under:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Everest Industries Limited, Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- 201301, Vs. Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Uttar Pradesh Estate, Thane(W)- 400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 of the 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determine 24/03/2015, the Assessing Officer determined total loss at ₹18,21,26,459 /- under the normal provisions of the under the normal provisions of the Act and also under the normal provisions of the denied exclusion of sion of sales tax incentive claimed by the assessee in claimed by the assessee

ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA MOTORS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes in the light of directions contained hereinabove

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S Tata Motors Vs. Acit, Cir-2(1), Mumbai-20 Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Acit, 2(1), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Motors Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D.Mistri & Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri R.Manjunatha Swamy, Citdr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

reassessment under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that the reopening proceedings are invalid and bad in law; Adjustment to book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of Provision for Deferred Tax, Provision for diminution in value of investments and provision for bad and doubtful debts 2a. erred in making addition to book profits under section

TATA MOTERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD.),MUMBAI vs. A CIT, CIR..-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes in the light of directions contained hereinabove

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S Tata Motors Vs. Acit, Cir-2(1), Mumbai-20 Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Acit, 2(1), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Motors Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D.Mistri & Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri R.Manjunatha Swamy, Citdr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

reassessment under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that the reopening proceedings are invalid and bad in law; Adjustment to book profit under section 115JB of the Act in respect of Provision for Deferred Tax, Provision for diminution in value of investments and provision for bad and doubtful debts 2a. erred in making addition to book profits under section

DCIT CEN CIR 18 & 19, MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2008-09 Dcit,Central Circle-18 & 19 V. Viraj Profiles Limited Mumbai 10,Imperial Chamber,Wilson Road, Ballard Estate,Mumbai- 400 038 Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1740N Appellant Respondent

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]” Perusal of Section 14A of the Act provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure ‘in relation

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. J.B MANGHARAM FOODS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed but that of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. J.B. Mangharam Foods Acit Cir 4(2), Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 D/1, 502 Krishna Kaveri C.H.S, Vs. Yamuna Nagar, Andheri – West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj1657R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cir 4(2), M/S. J.B. Mangharam Foods Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, D/1, 502 Krishna Kaveri C.H.S, Vs. M.K. Road, Yamuna Nagar, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj1657R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 147/143(3) be held to be ab inito void and be therefore be cancelled. 5) For that the appellant craves leave to file additional grounds and/or amend or later the grounds already taken either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had filed return

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done- through a pro - rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021 ITA No.1438/Mum./2021 that view taken by the Tribunal is correct