M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI-400021 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

68. Ground No. 4 pertains to deduction of INR 10,00,00,000/- claimed under 80G of the Act. 69. In view of paragraph 28 to 31 above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by CIT(A) and confirm the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent the Assessing Officer held that

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT 1(3) (2) , MUMBAI

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

Section 115O(1A)(i)(a) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the wholly owned subsidiary company i.e. Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd. had duly remitted the dividend distribution tax of Rs.81,11,250/- (i.e. Rs.5 Crores x 16.2225%) on 02/11/2012. Hence, as per the provisions of 115O(1A) of the Act, the assessee is entitled

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

115O of the Act. The provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section14A cannot be imported to clause (f) to the Explanation to section 115JB and no adjustment can be made to the Book profit in respect of disallowance under section 14A computed by invoking Rule8D. 5. On the contrary the ld. Special Counsel for revenue

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

115O of the act is available and the appeal is filed is maintainable then the impugned petition before the Honourable High Court would be withdrawn. This was the effective alternative remedy shown to the assessee. 20. It is apparent that, no appeal lies before the learned CIT – A u/s 246A of the act against the impugned order

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

115O of the act is available and the appeal is filed is maintainable then the impugned petition before the Honourable High Court would be withdrawn. This was the effective alternative remedy shown to the assessee. 20. It is apparent that, no appeal lies before the learned CIT – A u/s 246A of the act against the impugned order

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

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

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

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

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 allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

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

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

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

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

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

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

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

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

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

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved

ACIRA CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1274/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15) आअसं. 1275/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2015-16) Acira Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 511/C, 6Th Floor, Sunshine Chs Ltd. Off. Chandivli Farm, Raheja Vihar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. Pan: Aaica9489N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-5(1)(4), Room No. 569, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. V.G. Ginde, Advocate With Sh. Kumar Kale, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

68,88,070/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D to the tune of Rs. 36,03,819/-. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the prayer of the assessee in respect of ground no.1 is limited to the extent of disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) i.e. disallowance of ½ % of the average value

ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Itd Cementation India Ltd. Central Circle 5(1) 9Th Floor, Prima Bay, Room No.1928, 19 Th Floor, Tower-B, Gate No.5, Air India Building, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 072 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1426A Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2024

68,967 in respect of the contracts awarded by following Government or local or statutory authorities for developing and / or operating and / or maintaining a new infrastructure facility. Sr. Project No. Name of the client Amount (Rs.) No. 1. 35314AX Kolkata North Division 1,11,37,820 2. 41616AX Ircon International Ltd 59,04,074 ITD Cementation India

THE ACIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. FORBES GOKAK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosai, Jm Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Income Tax, Osd, Range Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 1 (1), Mumbai Pan: Aaacf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaccf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent

115O of the Act, it is incorrect to hold that dividend is tax-free and hence the question of application of section 14A cannot arise. 4. Without prejudice to the above, we submit that profits on sale of shares are in any event taxable and hence application of section 14A to cases of purchase of shares is misapplication

M/S. FORBES GOKAK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE JCIT OSD RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosai, Jm Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Income Tax, Osd, Range Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 1 (1), Mumbai Pan: Aaacf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaccf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent

115O of the Act, it is incorrect to hold that dividend is tax-free and hence the question of application of section 14A cannot arise. 4. Without prejudice to the above, we submit that profits on sale of shares are in any event taxable and hence application of section 14A to cases of purchase of shares is misapplication

DCIT 1 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly\nallowed

68,79,26,000/-(ITA No.1873 of 2013-Para 2,Pg.66,Para 3-\nPg.68-69,dtd.26/07/2016 ). Nothing has been brought on record\nthat the facts for the year under consideration are different in any\nmanner, except for the amount involved, from the facts of the last\nAY. Therefore, following the order of the Tribunal for that year, and\nthe aforesaid judgment

EVEREST INDUSTIRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

115O(5) of the Act. He submitted that the CBDT has issued instructions from time to time fixing monetary limits for preferring appeal before ITAT, HC & SC. He submitted that the definition of “tax effect” mentioned in those instructions, nowhere mentions that tax shall include surcharge or cess. He submitted that the Mumbai bench of ITAT has held