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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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)

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub- section (12), although allowed the benefit

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)

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub- section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

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

80J, which did not have a provision similar to sub-section (12) of section 80IA. 68. In summary, prior to insertion of sub-section (12) in section 80IA, the deduction was allowed to the amalgamating and the amalgamated companies on a pro-rata basis for the year in which the amalgamation took place. Sub-section (12), although allowed the benefit

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

Transfer Pricing Adjustment under Rs.31,63,26,783/- Sec.92CA(4) 3. Addition of unexplained expenses Rs. 6,87,976/- 4. Restriction of the assessee‘s claim for Rs.251,92,58,451/- ITA Nos.1431 &1350/Mum/2014 & ITA Nos.1925 & 1852/Mum/2015 7 A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT-10(3)/ACIT deduction under Sec. 80IC (as against

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

Transfer Pricing Adjustment under Rs.31,63,26,783/- Sec.92CA(4) 3. Addition of unexplained expenses Rs. 6,87,976/- 4. Restriction of the assessee‘s claim for Rs.251,92,58,451/- ITA Nos.1431 &1350/Mum/2014 & ITA Nos.1925 & 1852/Mum/2015 7 A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT-10(3)/ACIT deduction under Sec. 80IC (as against

STAR INDIA PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T.-RANGE311(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer has already been obtained and the issue requires proper examination by the Assessing Officer in the light of the report of TPO, detailed analysis of licence fee paid and other evidences filed by the assessee, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and the matter is restored to the file

TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() : A.Y : 2008-09

transferred by the assessee is not at all a depreciable asset and thus, the question of claiming depreciation on the same does not arise. 27. In the perception of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Accountant Member, the above interpretation of the statute will lead to allowance of double deduction to the assessee, which is not permitted under

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

transferred by the assessee is not at all a depreciable asset and thus, the question of claiming depreciation on the same does not arise. 27. In the perception of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Accountant Member, the above interpretation of the statute will lead to allowance of double deduction to the assessee, which is not permitted under

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

price paid for the cost of acquisition of 10,000 shares Rs.10,000/- with indexation from 2000-01. The AO had taken the cost of acquisition of 10,000 shares as on 31.03.2005 at WDV cost as on that date and accordingly calculated the WDV of 6386 shares at Rs.38,08,594/-. After indexing the same to inflation index

MSM DISCOVERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodmsm Discovery Private Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Interface Building No. 7, Tax-12(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Room No. 147B, 1St Floor, Vs. Malad (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400 064 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aagcs4253E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act Each of the above ground of appeal is without prejudice to and independent of one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the above ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

transferable. It therefore follows that an exporter cannot theoretically or otherwise suffer any loss on sale of import licences as he obtains them from the Government as incentive on the basis of exports made without paying separately any price for purchasing them. Loss is caused only when a thing’s original cost exceeds its later selling price or when