JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz

JSW STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz

JSW STEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

801A(9) restricts only allowability of deduction and not "computation of deduction". 80. The ld CIT(A) has expressed the view that the assessee has adopted two different parameters for computing deductions u/s 10AA ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 15 of 105 and u/s 80IB(9) of the Income

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

801A(9) restricts only allowability of deduction and not "computation of deduction". 80. The ld CIT(A) has expressed the view that the assessee has adopted two different parameters for computing deductions u/s 10AA ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 15 of 105 and u/s 80IB(9) of the Income

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

801A(9) restricts only allowability of deduction and not "computation of deduction". 80. The ld CIT(A) has expressed the view that the assessee has adopted two different parameters for computing deductions u/s 10AA ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 15 of 105 and u/s 80IB(9) of the Income

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

801A of the Act is to be computed at the rate at which the electricity is supplied to the consumers and not the rate at which the board purchases the electricity. Similar view has been taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the cases of Godavari Power & Ispat Ltd.,(supra) and the madras High 26 Larsen & Toubro Asstt.Yrs

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAVKAR CORPORATION LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, we affirm the order of the Ld

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

68,212 = 97,32,866 Less: Income under other hands Interest Income = 95,41,171 8 Navkar Corporation Limited Total Profit attributable to eligible unit 58,37,72,808 Less: Income which is not eligible for 801A deduction 1. EDI Service Income = 22,38,639 2. Income of maintenance & repairing = 6,00,86,714 6,23,25,353 of containers

IL & FS WINDFARMS LAT ( PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS IL & FS ENERGY DEV. CO.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shir S Rifaur Rahmanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6133 & 6134/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08

68,016/- may be taxed under the head income from business. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant denies the liability for payment interest u/s 234B of the Act. The appellant prays that the interest levied u/s 234b may be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal which

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

801A(4) of the Act. Hence, the said decision does not address the or"/ controversy of "developer" v. "contractor.” 45. Thus, we hold that assessee is a developer of each of the infrastructure facility mentioned hereinabove and considering the scope of work undertaken by the assessee in each of the contracts, the work carried out by the assessee cannot

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

801A(4) of the IT Act, 1961.” 5.2. Assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance so made. Findings of ld. CIT(A) while giving relief to the assesse are based on the following observations: “1. Perusal of S.801A(4) read with relevant sub clauses (a), (b) & (c) it is clear that the said clause

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

801A(4) of the IT Act, 1961.” 5.2. Assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance so made. Findings of ld. CIT(A) while giving relief to the assesse are based on the following observations: “1. Perusal of S.801A(4) read with relevant sub clauses (a), (b) & (c) it is clear that the said clause

ASST CIT CEN CIR 25, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

801A(4) is claimed. Copies of Agreement have been submitted by the appellant and the same have been place on record. A brief summary of the Agreement is as shown hereunder: 1) Koyna Project EXTENSION OF HEAD RACE TUNNEL (HRT) FOR WATER SUPPLY AND IRRIGATION IN KOYNA PROJECT (Government of Maharashtra - Irrigation Department)  The construction of extension of Head Race

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

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

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

68,25,97,659/- was granted u/s 80IA of the Act , which included a deduction of Rs. 20,39,98,805/- u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of Jojobera 67.5 MW power generating unit. The difference between the amount of deduction claimed in respect of Jojobera 67.5 MW power generating undertaking

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

801A of the Act of Rs. 48,79,600/- disallowed on account of common expenses. 8. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act of Rs. 48,79,600/- disallowed on account of common expenses relying on the decision

DCIT-CC-8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit-Cc-8(4), Savita Oil Technologies Limited Mumbai 66-67 Nariman Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021, Pan: Aaacs7934A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Chaitanya Joshi, Cas Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit (A) 50, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1075632908(1), Dated 15.04.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit,Cc- 8(4), Mumbai, U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 24.08.2021 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Justified In Law In Allowing Deduction Under Section 80-Ia(4) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Without Adjusting The Losses Incurred By The Eligible Undertaking Prior To The Initial Assessment Year, Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80-Ia(S)? 2. Whether The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Correct In Law In Relying Upon Cbdt Circular No. 1/2016 & The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Vcllayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (340 Itr 477) When There Exist Contrary Binding Judicial Precedents Mandating That Losses Of Earlier Years, Even

68,500/- under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to C.S.R. activity which was not claimed in the original return of income.” 3. We will take up the grounds taken by the Revenue seriatim. Ground No.1 to 4, they all relate to one single issue in respect of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80IA(4