ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

80J of Income-tax Act, 1961), way back in 1963 and clarified the matter vide Letter: F No 15/5/63-IT (A-I), dated 13 December 1963, which reads as under:- "The Board agree the benefit of section 84 attaches to the undertaking and not to the owner, thereof. The successor will be entitled to the benefit for the unexpired period

ACC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

80J of Income-tax Act, 1961), way back in 1963 and clarified the matter vide Letter: F No 15/5/63-IT (A-I), dated 13 December 1963, which reads as under:- "The Board agree the benefit of section 84 attaches to the undertaking and not to the owner, thereof. The successor will be entitled to the benefit for the unexpired period

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATES CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

80J of Income-tax Act, 1961), way back in 1963 and clarified the matter vide Letter: F No 15/5/63-IT (A-I), dated 13 December 1963, which reads as under:- "The Board agree the benefit of section 84 attaches to the undertaking and not to the owner, thereof. The successor will be entitled to the benefit for the unexpired period

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

80J, there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income Tax Officer could not withheld the relief for the subsequent years." 30.4 In view of these facts and circumstances and following the order

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATTA vs. DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 296 & 297/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.2011-12 To 2013-14) Essel Mining & Vs. Dy. Cit, Cc-1(4) Industries Limited 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Industry House, 18Th Building, M.K. Road, Floor, 10 Camac Street, Mumbai - 400020 Kolkata – 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent Jcit, Cc-1(4) Vs. M/S Essel Mining & R. No. 902, Pratistha Industries Limited Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Industry House, 18Th Cgo Building, Annexe, Floor, 10, Cama Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Kolkata- 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent

80J, there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income Tax Officer could not withheld the relief for the subsequent years.” 25.4 In view of these facts and circumstances and following the order

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 296 & 297/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.2011-12 To 2013-14) Essel Mining & Vs. Dy. Cit, Cc-1(4) Industries Limited 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Industry House, 18Th Building, M.K. Road, Floor, 10 Camac Street, Mumbai - 400020 Kolkata – 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent Jcit, Cc-1(4) Vs. M/S Essel Mining & R. No. 902, Pratistha Industries Limited Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Industry House, 18Th Cgo Building, Annexe, Floor, 10, Cama Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Kolkata- 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent

80J, there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income Tax Officer could not withheld the relief for the subsequent years.” 25.4 In view of these facts and circumstances and following the order

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 296 & 297/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.2011-12 To 2013-14) Essel Mining & Vs. Dy. Cit, Cc-1(4) Industries Limited 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Industry House, 18Th Building, M.K. Road, Floor, 10 Camac Street, Mumbai - 400020 Kolkata – 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent Jcit, Cc-1(4) Vs. M/S Essel Mining & R. No. 902, Pratistha Industries Limited Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Industry House, 18Th Cgo Building, Annexe, Floor, 10, Cama Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Kolkata- 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent

80J, there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income Tax Officer could not withheld the relief for the subsequent years.” 25.4 In view of these facts and circumstances and following the order

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATTA vs. DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 296 & 297/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.2011-12 To 2013-14) Essel Mining & Vs. Dy. Cit, Cc-1(4) Industries Limited 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Industry House, 18Th Building, M.K. Road, Floor, 10 Camac Street, Mumbai - 400020 Kolkata – 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent Jcit, Cc-1(4) Vs. M/S Essel Mining & R. No. 902, Pratistha Industries Limited Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Industry House, 18Th Cgo Building, Annexe, Floor, 10, Cama Street, Mumbai – 400 020 Kolkata- 700017 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace6607L Appellant .. Respondent

80J, there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income Tax Officer could not withheld the relief for the subsequent years.” 25.4 In view of these facts and circumstances and following the order

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., 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

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

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred to the assessee. The undertaking of the assessee was not formed by the splitting up of the business. On this issue, Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT v. Sonata Software Ltd [2012] 21 taxmann.com 23 has held as under:- “Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Free trade zone - IOCL set up a software

ACC LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - LTU, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred to the assessee. The undertaking of the assessee was not formed by the splitting up of the business. On this issue, Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT v. Sonata Software Ltd [2012] 21 taxmann.com 23 has held as under:- “Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Free trade zone - IOCL set up a software

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Range 1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Mumbai Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Acc Limited V. Asst. Cit-Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Ltu V. M/S. Acc Limited 28Th Floor, Centre-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred to the assessee. The undertaking of the assessee was not formed by the splitting up of the business. On this issue, Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT v. Sonata Software Ltd [2012] 21 taxmann.com 23 has held as under:- “Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Free trade zone - IOCL set up a software

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

transfer the infrastructure facility to the concern Government authorities within prescribed time. He contended that CIT(A) has wrongly applied the provisions of law as applicable prior to 01/04/2002 while considering the assessee's claim for deduction for the Ays.2009-10 and 2010-11 under consideration. Learned A.R threadbare taken us to the objections raised

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

transfer the infrastructure facility to the concern Government authorities within prescribed time. He contended that CIT(A) has wrongly applied the provisions of law as applicable prior to 01/04/2002 while considering the assessee's claim for deduction for the Ays.2009-10 and 2010-11 under consideration. Learned A.R threadbare taken us to the objections raised

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

transfer the infrastructure facility to the concern Government authorities within prescribed time. He contended that CIT(A) has wrongly applied the provisions of law as applicable prior to 01/04/2002 while considering the assessee's claim for deduction for the Ays.2009-10 and 2010-11 under consideration. Learned A.R threadbare taken us to the objections raised

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) was complied with for claiming deductions. Learned AR also invited our attention to the observation of CIT(A) with respect to the freight rate insofar as CIT(A) has wrongly considered the rate for quintals as against per Metric Ton adopted by assessee while computing eligible amount of deduction u/s.80IA (4). It was also contended by learned

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 80IA(4) was complied with for claiming deductions. Learned AR also invited our attention to the observation of CIT(A) with respect to the freight rate insofar as CIT(A) has wrongly considered the rate for quintals as against per Metric Ton adopted by assessee while computing eligible amount of deduction u/s.80IA (4). It was also contended by learned