TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

6). In this case, the primary ground of appeal raised by TSWT is reproduced hereunder:\n\"1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred charging tax at maximum marginal rate of 30% on the income of the Appellant excluding dividend resulting into a tax at normal rates of Rs.3

MAPE ADVISORY GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5.2.1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,281/- and was also entitled for\ninterest u/s.244A amounting to Rs.26,50,833/- for the period of\n42 months starting from 01/04/2017 to 18/09/2020. However,\nthe ld. AO has partly allowed the rectification holding as under:-\n3\nITA No.2191/Mum/2024\nM/s. Mape Advisory Group Pvt. Ltd\n3. On verification of the records available, it is found that the\nassessee

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(7) of the Act. The assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of sending three notices for the dates of hearing

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 34 1,18,486 1,18,486 5 2010-11 Q3 24Q 15-1-2011 13-1-2011 0703311000-17261 0 0 0 6

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

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than

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

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement

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

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than

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

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement

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

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than

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

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than

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

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than

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

6. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the order of coordinated bench in the case SIL Investment Ltd., 73 DTR 0233, wherein it was held that additional depreciation, which was restricted in the year of purchase to the extent of 50% on the plea of machinery having been put to use for a period of less than

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 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 and also the assessee failed to furnish the form No. 27C from all the parties to whom the scrap has been sold. 3. On the facts

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

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

6 ITA No. 2317 & 2752 /Mum/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in default for delay in the give effect order which was issued on 28/08/2019. Therefore, in this case the assessee's claim for additional interest u/s. 244A(1A) is denied.” Aggrieved with the said order, both the revenue and the assessee have filed appeal before

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

6 ITA No. 2317 & 2752 /Mum/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in default for delay in the give effect order which was issued on 28/08/2019. Therefore, in this case the assessee's claim for additional interest u/s. 244A(1A) is denied.” Aggrieved with the said order, both the revenue and the assessee have filed appeal before