ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(4) EARLIER WITH ACIT(LTU) 1, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No.563/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)\nAditya BirlaNuvo Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 1(4)\n(Since Amalgamated with\nGrasim Industries Limited)\nA2 Aditya Birla Centre, S. K.\nAhire Marg, Worli, Mumbai\nEarlier with Asst. CIT(LTU) 1\nRoom No. 902, Old CGO\nBuilding, 9th Floor, M. K. Road,\nMumbai-400 020\nPAN/GIR No.AAACI1747H\n(Appellant) .. (Respondent)\nITA No.1885/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)

price of\nelectricity in open market is an improper interpretation. He submitted, after 01.04.2009,\nby virtue of the overriding effect of Section 80A(6) of the Act, the definition of „market\nvalue‟ as per Section 80A(6) of the Act overrides the definition of market value under\nSection 80IA(8) of the Act. Without prejudice, he submitted, the definition

KBS CREATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) (any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section 10AA, to which provisions

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, C.O. filed by assessee is\ndismissed as infructuous

80A(6)", "Section 92BA", "Section 92F", "Section 14A", "Section 115JB", "Section 41(1)" ], "issues": "The main issue revolves around the correct determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for the inter-unit transfer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

80A, that the expression “market value” in relation to any goods or services sold, supplied or acquired means the “arm’s length price” as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F of such goods or services, if it is a specified domestic transactions referred to in section 92BA? 43. After examining various provisions under the Electricity Act, 2003 as well

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

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Price.\n6.3.7 With reference to above, judicial precedents rendered by various\nTribunals while examining 'market price' in the context of power supplied\nby power plants to manufacturing units has held that the rate at which\nthe State Electricity Board supplies power to its consumers is to be\nconsidered to be the market value:\n• M/s Hero Motocorp Limited

AAACORP EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.-CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Aaa Corp Exim India Pvt. Ltd. C-206, Ghatkopar Industrial Estate, Off Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086 Pan: Aacca8815C ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Income Tax Offices, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F.]” [Meaning of specified domestic transaction. 92BA. For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "specified domestic transaction" in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:— (i) [***] (ii) any transaction referred to in section 80A; (iii) any transfer

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

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment\nyears under consideration stands partly allowed and cross\nappeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

price at which the consumers were\nable to procure the power. Had the assessee not been saddled with\nrestrictions of supplying surplus power to the State Electricity Board, it\nwould have supplied power to the ultimate consumers at rates similar to\nthose of the Board or such other competitive rates, meaning thereby that\nprice received by the assessee would

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. ()

80A clearly states that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his “gross total income”, the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Energy (supra) is clearly applicable to Assessee’s case also

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of the Act dated 09.01.2015 computing a TP Adjustment towards performance guarantee at Rs. 5,26,17,801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of the Act dated 09.01.2015 computing a TP Adjustment towards performance guarantee at Rs. 5,26,17,801/-. The AO passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer of NH coke to\nUnit-II) at the landed cost. For arriving at such price, the sole way out was to obtain\nthe quotation from the company's erstwhile foreign supplier viz., Morgan Electrical\nCarbon Ltd. As regards the Assessing Officer's allegation that the proforma invoice\nfrom Morganite Electrical Carbonite Ltd. carried the name of the assessee

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the\nArms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transaction the assessee is having\nwith its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO passed an under section 92CA of\nthe Act dated 29.01.2016 computing a TP Adjustment towards financial and\nperformance guarantee totalling to Rs. 10,00,84,210/-. The AO passed an\nassessment order under section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

80A(5) only requires filing of return, nowhere it suggests that claim should be made in the original return and not by way of revised return. When the original return of income has been filed well within the due date, the revised return filed thereafter before the completion of assessment proceedings, is a valid return of income to be considered

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

80A(5) only requires filing of return, nowhere it suggests that claim should be made in the original return and not by way of revised return. When the original return of income has been filed well within the due date, the revised return filed thereafter before the completion of assessment proceedings, is a valid return of income to be considered

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

80A(5) only requires filing of return, nowhere it suggests that claim should be made in the original return and not by way of revised return. When the original return of income has been filed well within the due date, the revised return filed thereafter before the completion of assessment proceedings, is a valid return of income to be considered

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

80A(5) only requires filing of return, nowhere it suggests that claim should be made in the original return and not by way of revised return. When the original return of income has been filed well within the due date, the revised return filed thereafter before the completion of assessment proceedings, is a valid return of income to be considered

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

80A(5) only requires filing of return, nowhere it suggests that claim should be made in the original return and not by way of revised return. When the original return of income has been filed well within the due date, the revised return filed thereafter before the completion of assessment proceedings, is a valid return of income to be considered

ACC LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT ,RG. 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section existed upto 31-3-1988 and was deleted thereafter): "(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1980 but before the 1st day of April, 1985, a further sum equal to one-half of the amount admissible under clause (ii) (exclusive