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

transferred under a scheme of amalgamation or demerger. Further, as we have already held, sub-section (12) of section 80IA did not confer any new rights to the tax payer and hence its non-applicability cannot be construed to mean withdrawal of a right which is conferred under separate provisions of Section 80IA i.e. sub-section (1) r.w.s

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

transferred under a scheme of amalgamation or demerger. Further, as we have already held, sub-section (12) of section 80IA did not confer any new rights to the tax payer and hence its non-applicability cannot be construed to mean withdrawal of a right which is conferred under separate provisions of Section 80IA i.e. sub-section (1) r.w.s

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

transferred under a scheme of amalgamation or demerger. Further, as we have already held, sub-section (12) of section 80IA did not confer any new rights to the tax payer and hence its non-applicability cannot be construed to mean withdrawal of a right which is conferred under separate provisions of Section 80IA i.e. sub-section (1) r.w.s

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

transferred under a scheme of amalgamation or demerger. Further, as we have already held, sub-section (12) of section 80IA did not confer any new rights to the tax payer and hence its non-applicability cannot be construed to mean withdrawal of a right which is conferred under separate provisions of Section 80IA i.e. sub-section (1) r.w.s

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

transferred under a scheme of amalgamation or demerger. Further, as we have already held, sub-section (12) of section 80IA did not confer any new rights to the tax payer and hence its non-applicability cannot be construed to mean withdrawal of a right which is conferred under separate provisions of Section 80IA i.e. sub-section (1) r.w.s

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

transferred under a scheme of amalgamation or demerger. Further, as we have already held, sub-section (12) of section 80IA did not confer any new rights to the tax payer and hence its non-applicability cannot be construed to mean withdrawal of a right which is conferred under separate provisions of Section 80IA i.e. sub-section (1) r.w.s

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

transferred under a scheme of amalgamation or demerger. Further, as we have already held, sub-section (12) of section 80IA did not confer any new rights to the tax payer and hence its non-applicability cannot be construed to mean withdrawal of a right which is conferred under separate provisions of Section 80IA i.e. sub- section (1) r.w.s

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

transferred under a scheme of amalgamation or demerger. Further, as we have already held, sub-section (12) of section 80IA did not confer any new rights to the tax payer and hence its non-applicability cannot be construed to mean withdrawal of a right which is conferred under separate provisions of Section 80IA i.e. sub- section (1) r.w.s

DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Transfer Pricing Adjustments on 1563.90 Lacs account of interest on Loan & reimbursement of expenses 2. Disallowance u/s 14A 1033.95 Lacs M/s JSW Energy Limited Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 3. Denial of Deduction u/s 80-IA 15364.35 Lacs The assessee is also aggrieved by short credit of TDS for Rs.5.34 Lacs. First, we take up corporate tax issues. Corporate

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEM), CIRCLE - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer (\"TPO”), if the AO considered it necessary or expedient to do so. We\nfind that the provisions of section 92CA has laid down various procedures to\nbe followed by the TPO, such as seeking evidence from the assessee in support\n\nITA No. 4324/Mum/2025 (A.Υ. 2022-23) 18\nof computation made by the assessee

POSITIVE PACKAGING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Positive Packaging Industries Vs Dcit Circle 3(2), Room No. Ltd, 12A-06, B-Wing, 608, Aayakar Bhawan, Parinee Crescenzo, M.K.Road, C-38/39, G-Block, Mumbai-20 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan : Aaacp2836Q Appellant Respondednt

12A-06, B-Wing, 608, Aayakar Bhawan, Parinee Crescenzo, M.K.Road, C-38/39, G-Block, Mumbai-20 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 PAN : AAACP2836Q APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Bhaumik Goda (AR) Respondent by Shri Vodal Raj Singh (CIT-DR) Date of hearing 04-02-2020 Date of pronouncement

JINDAL DRUGS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE, 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

12A, 12th Floor, Bakhtawar, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 ……………… Appellant [PAN: AAACJ1000A] Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, 3(2)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, Chuchgate, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400020 Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Sh. Vijay Mehta Sh. Anuj Kisnadwala For the Respondent/Department : Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande Date of conclusion of hearing : 15.11.2022 Date of pronouncement of order

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

transferred to Electricity Board - Whether in above circumstances, since assessee was not able to collect enhanced charges, necessary entries made in its books of account represented only hypothetical income and it could not be brought to tax as it did not represent income which had really accrued even though assessee-company was following mercantile system of accounting UCO Bank

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

transferred to Electricity Board - Whether in above circumstances, since assessee was not able to collect enhanced charges, necessary entries made in its books of account represented only hypothetical income and it could not be brought to tax as it did not represent income which had really accrued even though assessee-company was following mercantile system of accounting UCO Bank

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

transferred to Electricity Board - Whether in above circumstances, since assessee was not able to collect enhanced charges, necessary entries made in its books of account represented only hypothetical income and it could not be brought to tax as it did not represent income which had really accrued even though assessee-company was following mercantile system of accounting UCO Bank

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

transferred to Electricity Board - Whether in above circumstances, since assessee was not able to collect enhanced charges, necessary entries made in its books of account represented only hypothetical income and it could not be brought to tax as it did not represent income which had really accrued even though assessee-company was following mercantile system of accounting UCO Bank

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

transferred to Electricity Board - Whether in above circumstances, since assessee was not able to collect enhanced charges, necessary entries made in its books of account represented only hypothetical income and it could not be brought to tax as it did not represent income which had really accrued even though assessee-company was following mercantile system of accounting UCO Bank

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price of the disinvestment/sale/transfer; or the sale proceeds received by the Mauritius company had ultimately been paid over by it to the Foreign Principal/ its 100% shareholder 10 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai either by way of Special Dividend or by way of repayment of loans received; or the real owner/beneficial owner of the shares