HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

10B of the Act. Treatment of legal cost incurred in respect of merger of erstwhile Industrial Perfumes Limited as capital expenditure – Ground No.15 43. The assessee had claimed a sum of Rs.6,63,778/- as legal expenses incurred towards amalgamation of M/s.Industrial Perfumes Ltd. The Assessing Officer disallowed this expenditure for the reason that the same does not pertain

SYSCOM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

10B(4) of the Act is applicable for 100% EOU, therefore the facts are distinguishable. Further he observed that on careful reading of the section 10 AA (7), only the profits derived from the export of articles or things (including computer software) shall be the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadcs8104P

10B units on the basis of actual rent paid.” 31. Briefly stated facts are that the AO and DRP has considered that the sum of ₹ 1,26,05,528/- being rental expenditure claimed by assessee and rent paid to related parties is unreasonable in term of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, disallowed the same

M/S. CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10B on the profits and gains derived from such undertakings. The Century Yarn division was set-up in the previous year 1993-94 relevant to the assessment year 1994- 95 and the 10 years for claim of exemption/deduction was up to assessment year 2003-04. The Century Denim Division was set-up स"चुर" टे"सटाइ"स अँड इंड

M/S. CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10B on the profits and gains derived from such undertakings. The Century Yarn division was set-up in the previous year 1993-94 relevant to the assessment year 1994- 95 and the 10 years for claim of exemption/deduction was up to assessment year 2003-04. The Century Denim Division was set-up स"चुर" टे"सटाइ"स अँड इंड

AYYAPPA SEVA SAMGHAM BOMBAY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-53, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay-Trust Plot No.185, Shree Ayyappa Temple Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 104 Pan: Aaata0312K ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (A), 53 634, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

10B so that exemption u/s 11 can be allowed to the assessee subject to verification. So, the only substantive 4 AYYAPPA SEVA SAMGHAM BOMBAY ground remains with the assessee is to challenge the taxability of Rs 3, 07, 77,617/- u/s. 115BBE r.w.s. 69A. We have gone through the submissions of the assessee along with case laws relied upon

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

10B of the Act. It is the settled legal position that when a particular claim has been scrutinized by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, as such, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen such assessed case in order to examine another facet of the same claim. 11. In light of the facts that the very basis for reopening

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

10B of the Act. It is the settled legal position that when a particular claim has been scrutinized by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, as such, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen such assessed case in order to examine another facet of the same claim. 11. In light of the facts that the very basis for reopening

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10B. In the circumstances, the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 32. The process of manufacturing is also similar in the case of the assessee as compared to the process considered by the coordinate bench. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to hold that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activities. Thus

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10B. In the circumstances, the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 32. The process of manufacturing is also similar in the case of the assessee as compared to the process considered by the coordinate bench. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to hold that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activities. Thus

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10B. In the circumstances, the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 32. The process of manufacturing is also similar in the case of the assessee as compared to the process considered by the coordinate bench. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to hold that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activities. Thus

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10B. In the circumstances, the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 32. The process of manufacturing is also similar in the case of the assessee as compared to the process considered by the coordinate bench. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to hold that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activities. Thus

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10B. In the circumstances, the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 32. The process of manufacturing is also similar in the case of the assessee as compared to the process considered by the coordinate bench. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to hold that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activities. Thus

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10B. In the circumstances, the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 32. The process of manufacturing is also similar in the case of the assessee as compared to the process considered by the coordinate bench. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to hold that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activities. Thus

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10B. In the circumstances, the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 32. The process of manufacturing is also similar in the case of the assessee as compared to the process considered by the coordinate bench. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to hold that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activities. Thus

M/S. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD vs. THE DY CIT 1(1),

10B. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any profits and gains derived by an assessee from a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking (hereafter in this section referred to as the undertaking) to which this section applies shall not be included in the total income of the assessee.” :…(Emphasis Supplied) 68

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act as the case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, wherein the same script i.e M/s Tilak Venture Ltd was in question and after evaluating the entire factual and financial statements of M/s. Tilak Venture Ltd, additions were deleted. In this regard the Ld.AR also relied upon the decision

NETMAGIC IT SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowedfor statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Pawan Singhआयकरअपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1399/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Netmagic It Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 9(2)(3) 2Nd Floor,(North Side), Block B-2, Mumbai Phase-1, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Vs Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400063 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccn2366D (Appellant) Respondent अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Anujkishadwala (Ar) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Suman Kumar (Dr)

68,06,317/-: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT (A)’] erred in disallowing deduction u/s 10A by relying on the observations of the then Ld. CIT(A) order for the AY 2007-2008 dated 15th October 2010 as order