DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

68,198/- CIF,-An Amount of Rs.l,45,01,56,956/- appears to have been siphoned by over-valuation by the assessee. 7.8 The Coal of Indonesian origin was exempted from Custom duty with effect from 01.10.2010 subject to submission of Country of Origin certificate in Form-AI issued by Indonesian authorities, Amongst many data fields, the 'Form-AI' certificate

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

68,198/- CIF,-An Amount of Rs.l,45,01,56,956/- appears to have been siphoned by over-valuation by the assessee. 7.8 The Coal of Indonesian origin was exempted from Custom duty with effect from 01.10.2010 subject to submission of Country of Origin certificate in Form-AI issued by Indonesian authorities, Amongst many data fields, the 'Form-AI' certificate

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

9A) [presently 80-IA(9)], by Finance Act, 1998, wherein it is stated that the profits allowed under section 80-IA(1) shall not qualify for deductions under any other provisions under heading ‘C’ of Chapter VI-A. As noted earlier, the words used in section 80-IA(9) are ‘shall not be allowed’ and not the words

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

68,198/- CIF,-An Amount of Rs.1,45,01,56,956/-\nappears to have been siphoned by over-valuation by the\nassessee.\n7.8 The Coal of Indonesian origin was exempted from Custom\nduty with effect from 01.10.2010 subject to submission of\nCountry of Origin certificate in Form-AI issued by Indonesian\nauthorities. Amongst many data fields, the 'Form-AI' certificate

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

9A), "execution of an authorisation for search" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in Explanation 2 to section 158BE. Explanation 2.—In this section, the word "proceeding" means any proceeding in respect of any year, whether under the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act, which may be pending

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

9A, 9th Floor, North Tower, Circle 3(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Godrej One, Phirojshanagar M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Eastern Express Highway, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Vikharoli East, Mumbai-400059. PAN : AADCV0767H Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddesh Chaugule, AR : Shri Nihar Samal, Sr. DR Revenue/Respondent by Date of Hearing : 23.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement

GODREJ TYSON FOODS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6672/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

68,78,559/- (Rs.59,87,222/- for Assessment Year 2011-12 and Rs.3,08,91,337/- for Assessment Year 2012-13. However, the Appellant was entitled to set-off only Rs. 1,28,21,526/- under section 115JAA, being the difference of the tax liability 4 I.T.A. No. 6672/Mum/2019 computed as per regular provisions and as per Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 28(9A) of the Customs Act, 1962. Ld. Counsel further submitted that till date after the show cause notice has been issued, neither any adjudicating order has been passed nor any action has been taken by the DRI.Thus, disallowance of so-called inflated coal expenses is wrongly made and ought to be deleted. 46. Before

RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 28(9A) of the Customs Act, 1962. Ld. Counsel further submitted that till date after the show cause notice has been issued, neither any adjudicating order has been passed nor any action has been taken by the DRI.Thus, disallowance of so-called inflated coal expenses is wrongly made and ought to be deleted. 46. Before

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

9A) only the pro-rata amount could have been reduced. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. The appellant submits that for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115JB, deduction under clause (iv) of the Explanation in respect of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHC ought to be computed on the basis of the adjusted book profits

ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

9A) only the pro-rata amount could have been reduced. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. The appellant submits that for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115JB, deduction under clause (iv) of the Explanation in respect of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHC ought to be computed on the basis of the adjusted book profits

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

9A) only the pro-rata amount could have been reduced. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. The appellant submits that for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115JB, deduction under clause (iv) of the Explanation in respect of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHC ought to be computed on the basis of the adjusted book profits

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

9A) only the pro-rata amount could have been reduced. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. The appellant submits that for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115JB, deduction under clause (iv) of the Explanation in respect of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHC ought to be computed on the basis of the adjusted book profits

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

9A) only the pro-rata amount could have been reduced. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. The appellant submits that for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115JB, deduction under clause (iv) of the Explanation in respect of profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHC ought to be computed on the basis of the adjusted book profits

YASH RAJ FILMS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, MUMBAI

68 of Act. 3.1.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him,it was argued that the amount of Rs.3.13 crores shown as liability as the business statements/accounts between both the parties could not be settled during the year, that the amount paid by KE towards publicity

DCIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. YASH RAJ FILMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

68 of Act. 3.1.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him,it was argued that the amount of Rs.3.13 crores shown as liability as the business statements/accounts between both the parties could not be settled during the year, that the amount paid by KE towards publicity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

68,006 under section\n115JB of the Act, by filling its return of income for the AY under\nconsideration on dated 30.11.2013, which was initially processed\nu/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently selected for scrutiny and\ntherefore the Assessing Officer {in short “AO\"} issued the statutory\nnotices including dated 01.07.2015 u/s.143(2) of the Act, which\nwas

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

9A), without appreciating that the same was not applicable in the year under consideration. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the sales proceeds of the articles exported out of India were received in India in convertible foreign exchange within the prescribed time inspite