KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance having been made with respect to addition of Rs. 5,12,27,909 u/s 145A of the 1961 Act on account of differential Cenvat Credit in opening and closing stock. The assessee is following exclusive method of accounting while valuing stock while the Revenue is contending that only inclusive method of accounting can be adopted while valuing stock keeping

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2) , MUMBAI

145A are applicable for computing deemed income\nu/s.44B and GST is added to the specified amounts and\nprovisions of Section 29 are invoked, then deduction of GST paid\nshould be allowed while computing income under the head\n'profits and gains' of business or profession as per Section 43B.\nEven otherwise also Section 44B over rights Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed 50% of the expenses towards capitalization to the cost of project. On further appeal, the CIT(A) held that the directors salary and handover facility expenses are incurred year after year and they are related to the business of the assessee in general and not project specific expenses. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that these expenses are neither capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowed 50% of the expenses towards capitalization to the cost of project. On further appeal, the CIT(A) held that the directors salary and handover facility expenses are incurred year after year and they are related to the business of the assessee in general and not project specific expenses. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that these expenses are neither capital

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 3(2)(2), AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowed once GST has not been paid within the due date. However, this is purely academic, contention which has been raised because we have already held that for the purpose of Section 44B only specified amount mentioned in the sub-Section 2 of Section 44B alone is the subject matter of computation of profit @7.5% and Section 145A

OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL GMBH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INT. TAXATION)RANGE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 4 of the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed once GST has not been paid within the due\ndate. However, this is purely academic, contention which has been raised\nbecause we have already held that for the purpose of Section 44B only\nspecified amount mentioned in the sub-Section 2 of Section 44B alone is the\nsubject matter of computation of profit @7.5% and Section 145A

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance for excess Ground No.8 - depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance for excess Ground No.8 - depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance for excess Ground No.8 - depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance for excess Ground No.8 - depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Disallowance for excess Ground No.8 - depreciation claim on assets eligible for 100% depreciation Treaty rate to be applied for Additional Additional Additional dividend distributed instead of Ground Ground Ground rate prescribed in sec.115-O 3. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case