DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

801A of the Act for the Assessment Year\n2011-12 and therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow\nthe deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as claimed by the\nAssessee after verification of the computation as per law. In\nterms of the aforesaid, Ground No.5 raised by the Assessee is\nallowed.\nGround No. 6\n9. Ground

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

801A of the Act for the Assessment Year\n2011-12 and therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow\nthe deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as claimed by the\nAssessee after verification of the computation as per law. In\nterms of the aforesaid, Ground No.5 raised by the Assessee is\nallowed.\nGround No. 6\n9. Ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

transfers it to another enterprise of the purpose of operating and maintaining such facility on its behalf in accordance with agreement with the Central Govt., State Govt., local authority or statutory body. In such a case Lite deduction from profits would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period if any, out of the 10 consecutive years

PATEL ENGINEERING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

transfers it to another enterprise of the purpose of operating and maintaining such facility on its behalf in accordance with agreement with the Central Govt., State Govt., local authority or statutory body. In such a case Lite deduction from profits would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period if any, out of the 10 consecutive years

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

801A(8)\nof the Act. The ld AR also submitted that the rate at which TPL as held by the DRP is\nnot the correct comparable since many factors which the revenue raised while\ncomparing rate charged by GEB are applicable to TPL also.\n6.\nThe ld. DR on the other hand argued that if the comparison with rate charged

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 ()

Section 92BA w.e.f. 01/04/2013, then statute would have provided that for the purpose of Sub-section (8) to Section 80IA, “market value” in relation to goods or services means the arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of Section 92F. If both the clauses exist then one has to see if the market value is discernible from

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

801A of the Act.\n8. Disallowance of unsecured loans/security deposits\n8.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO/DRP has erred in disallowing unsecured loans/security deposit amounting to\nRs 2,00,75,850 obtained by Appellant during the subject year under Section 68 of\nthe Act.\n9. Transfer Pricing adjustment - Disallowance

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

801A of the Act.\n8. Disallowance of unsecured loans/security deposits\n8. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO/DRP has erred in disallowing unsecured loans/security deposit amounting to\nRs 2,00,75,850 obtained by Appellant during the subject year under Section 68 of\nthe Act.\n9. Transfer Pricing adjustment - Disallowance

ACIT/DCIT 31(2), MUMBAI vs. PATEL PRATIBHA JV, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer of a chattel qua chattel, the contract is one for work and labour. (4) The bulk of material used in construction belongs to the manufacturer who sells the end-product for a price, then it is a strong pointer to a conclusion that the contract is in substance one for the sale of goods and not for work

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

pricing study is highly facts-intensive and vary from year to year and thus the CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merits of the facts for the impugned year separately? (Included in 7) 10.7 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on ITAT decision

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

pricing study is highly facts-intensive and vary from year to year and thus the CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merits of the facts for the impugned year separately? (Included in 7) 10.7 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on ITAT decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMRUDDHI CEMENT LIMITED (SINCE AMALGAMATED INTO M/S.ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

price at which it is issued and the market value of the shares would also be expenditure incurred for the purposes of section 37(1) of the Act. The primary object of the aforesaid exercise is not to waste capital but to earn profits by securing consistent services of the employees and therefore, the same cannot be construed as short

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMRUDDHI CEMENT LIMITED (SINCE AMALGAMATED INTO M/S.ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

price at which it is issued and the market value of the shares would also be expenditure incurred for the purposes of section 37(1) of the Act. The primary object of the aforesaid exercise is not to waste capital but to earn profits by securing consistent services of the employees and therefore, the same cannot be construed as short

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 all the machines

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 all the machines

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)

801A, the base amount for calculating deduction got reduced from Rs 80,36,50,237 to Rs 66,37,35,347 i.e. reduction of Rs. 13,99,14,890 which is exactly the amount of deduction reduced by AO. Since, AO has not disturbed the total receipts and the basis of apportionment of expenses Le in turnover ratio

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

section 801A(4)(i) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Assessee paid contract price as per contractual obligations on completion of work and TDS deducted accordingly. Hence relationship between assessee and government is of contractor and contractee. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited 3. Assessee has acted as a contractor only on a specific contract allotted

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

section 801A(4)(i) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Assessee paid contract price as per contractual obligations on completion of work and TDS deducted accordingly. Hence relationship between assessee and government is of contractor and contractee. AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited 3. Assessee has acted as a contractor only on a specific contract allotted