INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

5. Assuming without admitting that sub-clause ii) of clause (a) of f clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case, section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case, section (1) of section 143 has been applied in the present case

DCIT-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

5) of Section 80- IA of the Act is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of Section 80-IA of the Act by treating ‘eligible business’ as the ‘only source of income’.” 25 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 21. We notice that sub-section (3) of section 80HHE which

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

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

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

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SYNTEL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit-3(2)(1), Syntel Private Limited, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Unit No. 112 Sdf Iv, Seepz Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri East Mumbai-400096. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 8305 D Appellant Respondent

80A(5) and this deduction is allowable subject to satisfaction of conditions mentioned in provisions of section 10AA. to satisfaction of conditions mentioned in provisions of section 10AA. to satisfaction of conditions mentioned in provisions of section 10AA. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a Briefly stated, facts of the case

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

80A (6) alongwith Explanation reads as under:- “(6)[ Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 10-A or section 10-AA or section 10-B or section 10-BA or in any provisions of this Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", where any goods or services held for the purposes

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

80A(IA) provides for exemption in respect of „profit derived by an eligible undertaking‟ for the specified purposes, but the critical words are “derived from” and, therefore, “it is only the expenditure, which had a direct and proximate (immediate) nexus with the earning of profit from eligible undertaking that could be taken into consideration for determining such profits

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

80A(IA) provides for exemption in respect of „profit derived by an eligible undertaking‟ for the specified purposes, but the critical words are “derived from” and, therefore, “it is only the expenditure, which had a direct and proximate (immediate) nexus with the earning of profit from eligible undertaking that could be taken into consideration for determining such profits

M/S. AMEYA BUILDERS & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE

80A(5) of the Act the benefit of enhanced deduction u/s 80IB(10) is not permitted if the assessee fails to make a claim in its return of income for any deduction. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the decision

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE vs. M/S. AMEYA BUILDERS & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

80A(5) of the Act the benefit of enhanced deduction u/s 80IB(10) is not permitted if the assessee fails to make a claim in its return of income for any deduction. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the decision

M/S. LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

80A(6), there is, in effect, no change in the\nlegal position so far as the transfer price of the electricity from eligible\nunits to ineligible units is concerned since the connotations of 'arm's\nlength price of the electricity inherently include market price of the\nelectricity, and the 'market price of the electricity has been conclusively\ndefined

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

sections, the same profits shall not be allowed as a deduction under any other provision of this Act for the same assessment year and that in any case the deduction shall not exceed the profits and gains of the eligible undertaking or unit or enterprise or business, as the case may be. Even if Section 10A/Section

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

68 (Mum-TRIB); iii) Qualcomm India (P) Ltd v. ACIT [2014] 147 ITD 17 (Del-TRIB); iv) Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd v.DDIT [2014]147 ITD 463(Pun); v) Apotex Research P Ltd. v DCIT [2013] 59 sot 117 (Bang). He also placed reliance on OECD guidelines to show that the loss making comparables that satisfies the functional and comparability analysis

SYNGENTA INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

68 (Mum-TRIB); iii) Qualcomm India (P) Ltd v. ACIT [2014] 147 ITD 17 (Del-TRIB); iv) Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd v.DDIT [2014]147 ITD 463(Pun); v) Apotex Research P Ltd. v DCIT [2013] 59 sot 117 (Bang). He also placed reliance on OECD guidelines to show that the loss making comparables that satisfies the functional and comparability analysis

DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit, Central Circle – 1(2) Vs. M/S. Uni Design Jewellery Pvt. Mumbai Ltd., Plot No.4,5,6, Uni Design Seepz, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan/Gir No. Aaacu0572G Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri V. Jenardhanan Revenue By Shri Rakesh Mohan Date Of Hearing 20/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

68 taxmann.com 42 in IT (TP) Appeal No. 1289 of 2014, wherein it has ( QJ been observed as under: "IT/ILT: Though TNMM obviates necessity for complete product identity or services identity between tested party and comparables and broad functional similarities would suffice, but where functional profile shows that dissimilarity, even within very same segment, is so significant

ACIT CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. PRISM JOHNSON LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

5% and the total revenue to be charged for loading\nand unloading was taken at Rs. 4,68,50,208/-. Adding same to the total\nrevenue to be charged for railway freight Rs.6,11,22,022/-. The AO\ncomputed the total revenue at Rs.10,79,72,230/- and the deduction u/s\n80IA of the Act was computed thereof

ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TECH MAHINDRA ( R &D SERVICES) LTD (NOW MERGED WITH TECH MAHINDRA LTD), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

80A(1) stipulates that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Chapter, the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U . Section 80B(5) defines for the purposes of Chapter VI-A “gross total income” to mean the total

M/S. INDAGRO FOODS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - (OSD) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

80A(2) in part A of Chapter VI-A, the aggregate amount of deduction allowed under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the gross total income. Thus, the overall deduction allowed under Chapter VI-A cannot exceed the gross total income. However, on noticing that several under- takings were availing deductions under Chapter VI-A within the overall limit