IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6807 and 6709/MUM/2010 Assessment Years: 2004-05 and 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner of UPL Limited Income-tax, (Formerly known as United Central Circle – 38, Mumbai. Phosphorus Ltd.)

Vs. Uniphos House, C.D. Marg, 11th Road, Madhu Park, Khar(West), Mumbai – 400052 (PAN : AABCS1698G)

(Appellant) ( R e s p ondent)

C.O. No. 188/MUM/2011 (Arising out of ITA No.6709/MUM/2010)

Assessment Year – 2005-06 UPL Limited Assistant/Deputy (Formerly known as United Commissioner of Income-

Phosphorus Ltd.) tax, Uniphos House, C.D. Marg, 11th Vs. Central Circle – 38, Mumbai.

Road, Madhu Park, Khar(West), Mumbai – 400052 (PAN : AABCS1698G)

(Appellant) ( R e s p ondent)

ITA Nos. 7027 and 7028/MUM/2010 Assessment Years: 2004-05 and 2005-06 And ITA Nos. 6950, 2172 and 5344/Mum/2013 Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08 Present for:

Assessee : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Ms. Saisudha Multani, CA Revenue : Shri Abhishek Tharwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

All these captioned seven appeals and one cross appeal filed by both, assessee and revenue are against the orders of Ld. CIT(A) passed against the assessment/penalty orders by ACIT/DCIT, CC-38, Mumbai. Consolidated details of these appeals and cross appeal are tabulated below:

2. Grounds taken by the revenue and the assessee in their respective appeals/cross objection are reproduced as under:

ITA No. No.6807/Mum/2010 (A.Y.2004-05) by the Dept

1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that 90% of DEPB receipts is not to be reduced from the business income while computing the allowable deduction u/s. 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act, as the assessee has utilized the DEPB licenses in its own business, when no such contention was raised before the Assessing Officer."

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) should have referred the issue of utilization of DEPB licenses to the file of the Assessing Officer, as the assessee never claimed before the Assessing Officer that it has utilized the DEPB licenses in its own business and this claim was made for the first time before CIT(A)."

ITA No. 6709/Mum/2010 (A.Y.2005-06) by the Dept

1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,52,414/-made by the A.O. u/s.36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) in respect of employee's contribution to Provident Fund paid after the due date but during the previous year without considering the fact that the due dates prescribed under respective Acts i.e. Provident Fund Act and ESIC Act are mandatory and can not be extended".

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that allowability of deduction on account of employee's contribution is governed by provisions of section 36(1) (va) and hence, deduction is not allowable if the same are not paid within due dates.

CO No. 188/Mum/2011 (A.Y.2005-06) by the assessee On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, it is submitted that the incentives received under the Industrial Policy introduced in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the form of excise duty refund amounting to Rs

3,83,24,412 ought to be treated as a capital receipt not liable to tax.

ITA No. 7027/Mum/2010 (A.Y.2004-05) by the assessee

1.DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A: Rs 14,87,500 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax in computing disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of expenditure incurred for earning tax-free income at Rs 14,87,500/- as per Rule 8D inserted by the Income-tax (Fifth Amendmen