DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY SLUM REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 801B on the income from the sale of FSI (Floor Space Index). The case was re The case was re-opened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the opened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the fact that the allowability of deduction u/s 801B on this issue in the fact that the allowability

S.B. ENTERPRISES,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(3), THANE

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6749/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

section 801B(10) were not applicable in the appellant's case. Therefore, no proportionate deduction can be allowed to the appellant in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra). 15. Another reason for denying deduction u/s 801B(l0) to the appellant has been mentioned by the AO in para 3(iii) of the assessment order

DCIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RIVA RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Riva Resorts Pvt. Ltd., – 13(3)(2), A 306, Radhakrishna Vs. Mumbai Apartments, Dahisar S.O., Mumbai – 400068 (Pan : Aadcr2341B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Gunjan Kakkad & Mr. Fenil Bhat, A.Rs

801B(10) of the Act were not fully met." 8.8 We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that the Ld. Commissioner not only thoroughly considered the parameters of section 80ID of the Act and the relevant facts and the documents submitted by the Assessee but also the order passed

ACIT 15(3), MUMBAI vs. NEELKANTH PALM REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68% of the project. Subsequently, vide the impugned order dated 19.02.2013, the AO has levied penalty also for such disallowance. 3. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty after observing as under :- “The facts of the case and the submissions of the assessee have been considered carefully. It is not in dispute that assessee has disclosed

ITO 32(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. PRATHMESH REALTORS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

section 80IB(10) of the Act at ₹ 2,78,749/- as against the claim of assessee of ₹ 47,68,710/-. For this Revenue has raised the following three grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 801B

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTHCARE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

801B of the Act by disregarding certain incomes while computing the profits for the aforesaid deduction. I.2 The Appellant therefore prays that the said disallowance be deleted. 9.1. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also noticed that the Assessee had included several ‘Other Incomes’ in the profits and gains derived from the following units claiming ITA. No. 6591 & 6549/Mum/2010

PROCTER & GAMGLE HYGIENE& HEALTHCARE ,LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

801B of the Act by disregarding certain incomes while computing the profits for the aforesaid deduction. I.2 The Appellant therefore prays that the said disallowance be deleted. 9.1. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also noticed that the Assessee had included several ‘Other Incomes’ in the profits and gains derived from the following units claiming ITA. No. 6591 & 6549/Mum/2010

ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ACIT CEN CI-43 vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

CIPLA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 1(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B (Revenue) : (Assessee) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B : (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

801B undertaking. (ii) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. cIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction of Rs.23,42,32,944/ u/s. 80IB of the Act, on the profits derived from the work/manufacturing got done through Lease and License Manufacturers(LLMs). " (iii) "On the facts and circumstances

DCIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI vs. CIPLA LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B (Revenue) : (Assessee) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B : (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

801B undertaking. (ii) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. cIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction of Rs.23,42,32,944/ u/s. 80IB of the Act, on the profits derived from the work/manufacturing got done through Lease and License Manufacturers(LLMs). " (iii) "On the facts and circumstances

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. FLIPSPACES TECHNOLOGY LABS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

801B, 801C And 802A, 8th Floor, Eureka Tower, Mindspace Link Road Malad West Maharashtra-400064 PAN:AACCF6130F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rashmikant Modi, Ms. Ketki Rajshrike Respondent by Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.05.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the revenue is against order dated 28/01/2025