Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (2.78 seconds)
Documents citing Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs Dcit Range 6(3), Mumbai on 13 June, 2023

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs Dcit Cit Cir. 6(3), Mumbai on 23 June, 2023

126. We find that all the aforesaid conditions are satisfied in the present case for claiming deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. As regards the submission of the learned DR that the assessee has constructed a private siding for captive use, we find that similar submission was rejected by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee's subsidiary company in UltraTech cement Ltd (supra), vide order dated 14/12/2021. Further, even though the agreement was entered on 10/04/2000, and the operations commenced in September 1999, it is pertinent to note that the parties to the agreement have honoured the said agreement, and the rights granted therein were not revoked for this reason and the said agreement was still valid in the year under consideration. In view of the aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench cited supra, we find no infirmity in the impugned order allowing deduction under section 80-IA of the Act to the assessee in respect of profits from the rail system. As a result, ground no.11 raised in Revenue's appeal is dismissed.‖
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 56 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs Dcit Cir - 6(3), Mumbai on 4 July, 2023

The point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant. The source is immaterial. The form of subsidy is immaterial.‖ In fact, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while rendering this decision had duly considered its earlier decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., reported in 228 ITR 253 and had absolutely no quarrel with that judgement. Rather, it concurred with the decision rendered in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., case. In this regard, it would be relevant to reproduce the operative portion of the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 58 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Cy. Cit 6(1) (2) , Mumbai vs M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, ... on 19 July, 2023

10. Shree Sanand Textiles Held that the provisions of section 68 cannot be Industries Ltd. V. DCIT vide applied in relation to the sales receipt shown by ITA No. 1166/AHD/2014 the assessee in its books of accounts. It is because the sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income at the time of sale only. We are also aware of the fact that there is no iota of evidence having any adverse remark on the purchase shown by the assessee in the books of accounts. Once the purchases have been accepted, then the corresponding sales cannot be disturbed without giving any conclusive evidence/finding. In view of the above we are not convinced with the finding of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly we set aside the same with the direction to the AO to delete the addition made by him.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cognizant Technology Solutions India ... vs Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai on 13 September, 2023

[1997] 1 SCC. Further, as alleged by the assessee, the Revenue is not re- characterizing the scheme. The AO is fully empowered to analyze the effects of the scheme and to determine whether they attract the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not. The AO has taken the facts from the scheme and applied in light of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is, in our considered view perfectly valid and this view is supported by the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Grasim Industries v. DCIT in ITA No.1935/MUM/2020. Further, the determination of the tax liability on the basis of the 'Scheme of Arrangement & Compromise' as sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras looking into all the terms laid down therein is the statutory duty of the AO. In any event, the Hon'ble High Court does not specifically restrict the powers of the AO to examine the taxability of payment of consideration by the assessee to its non-resident shareholders in a 'Scheme of Arrangement & Compromise' for purchase of its own shares. Because, the scheme itself provides for liberty to the various authorities to look into the scheme in accordance with relevant laws. Therefore, the arguments of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that once, the scheme approved by the Hon'ble High Court is operates as in 'rem' and is binding on the Revenue does not holds good. No doubt, the Court approved scheme is binding on all stakeholders, wherever it comes to the commercial wisdom of the persons who proposed the scheme. However, it does not mean that other consequences like tax implications are fully ITA No.269/Chny/2022 :: 78 ::
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 72 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Tata Sons Private Limited, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 6 December, 2023

7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The first grievance of the assessee with regard to calculation of interest under section 244A is the way in which the AO has adjusted the refunds issued. In this regard we notice that the coordinate bench has been consistently holding the AO is required first adjust the interest component and then the taxes for the purpose of calculating interest under section 244A of the Act. The relevant extract from the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd vs DCIT (123 taxmann.com 312) is as given below -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next