M/S SAFE LIFE PHARMACHEM PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18

68 of the Act on account of cash deposited during the demonetisation period in its bank account and interest paid under section 201(1A) or under section 206C

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,867 3 2010-11 Q2 24Q 15-10-2010 26-11-2010 070 33 OBQ 0536246 42 0 0 4 2010-11 Q2 26Q 15-10-2010 18-11-2010 07Q330300634566

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be”. 240 For the purpose of second proviso to section 32, the plant is considered as “acquired” only after

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

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

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

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

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 32(2), MUMBAI vs. METFORM CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Metform Corporation, Tax -32(2), 601-602, Siddharth Arcace, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Factory Lane, L.T. Road, Room No. 308, C-10, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Borivali (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400092 Bandra (East), Pan: Aaafm9883D Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2019

68,62,793/- by not taking note of the fact that the assessee has also not collected and paid any tax on the scrap sales as per the provisions of Section 206C

STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUCESSOR OF STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.- (SSIPL),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above and Ground

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. A C I T (Successor Of Star Sports India -16(1) Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 439, Star House, Urmi Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg M.K. Road, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaacn1335Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 114/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) A C I T -16(1) M/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan (Successor Of Star Sports India M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400013 Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr Advocate Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das –Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 01. Assessee Has Filed Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Acit-16(1), Mumbai

68 taxmann.com 46. With respect to his submission that the valid revised return of income curing any defects cannot be ignored, he relied upon the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in the case of prime securities Ltd versus Varinder Mehta (2009) 317 ITR 27 wherein the return verified by the company secretary was held to be not amounting

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April of the assessment year

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

206C or\npaid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under\nsection 199, during the financial year immediately\npreceding the assessment year, such interest shall be\ncalculated at the rate of one-half per cent for every\nmonth or part of a month comprised in the period from\nthe 1st day of April of the assessment year

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriindian Oil Corporation V/S. Dcit-14(2)(1), Mumbai Ltd. बनाम Aaykar Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, M.K.Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1681G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit-14(2)(1), Mumbai V/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, M.K.Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1681G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

68 months from December 2014 to July 2020 in granting refund due to the assessee. Accordingly, he argued that the assessee is entitled to additional interest @3% per annum u/s 244A(1)(b) for the entire period. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the following decisions in support of its claim. (i) Stock Holding Corporation of India v/s N.C. Tewari

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriindian Oil Corporation V/S. Dcit-14(2)(1), Mumbai Ltd. बनाम Aaykar Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, M.K.Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1681G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit-14(2)(1), Mumbai V/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, M.K.Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1681G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

68 months from December 2014 to July 2020 in granting refund due to the assessee. Accordingly, he argued that the assessee is entitled to additional interest @3% per annum u/s 244A(1)(b) for the entire period. Ld. AR further placed reliance on the following decisions in support of its claim. (i) Stock Holding Corporation of India v/s N.C. Tewari