DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, THANE, ASHAR IT PART, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE WEST vs. MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, SANDOZBAUGH SO THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3325/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 November 2024AY 2017-1822 pages
AI SummaryN/A

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction for MVAT paid under protest under Section 43B. For the assessee's cross-objections regarding deductions under Section 80G and Section 35AC, and the addition of Trait Fees, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded these issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 7 Cr. (MVAT paid under protest) and upheld the disallowance of deductions under sections 80G and 35AC for CSR activities, and an addition related to Trait Fees. The assessee filed cross-objections contesting these additions and disallowances for the assessment year 2017-18.

What were the issues?

1. Whether MVAT paid under protest is deductible under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the liability might not be finalized. 2. Whether mandatory CSR expenditure qualifies for deduction under Section 80G or Section 35AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether income from 'Trait Fees' not recognized in books due to uncertainty of recovery should be added to total income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 43B,Section 80G,Section 80G(1)(i),Section 80G(2),Section 80G(2)(a)(iv),Section 35AC,Section 36(1)(vii),Section 37(1),Section 133(6),Section 30,Section 31,Section 32,Section 33,Section 34,Section 35,Section 35CCD,Section 36

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Hearing: 14.11.2024Pronounced: 29.11.2024

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →