(2013) 353 ITR 388 (Himachal Pradesh); ACIT, Circle 6(3), Mumbai v. Liva Healthcare Ltd.

344 ITR 329High Court2012#24722 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80G

Judgments citing (2013) 353 ITR 388 (Himachal Pradesh); ACIT, Circle 6(3), Mumbai v. Liva Healthcare Ltd.

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3766/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80G

…in law. The latter category of expenditure has consistently been held to be allowable. 40. In this context, reliance placed by the assessee on judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in J.K. Panthaki & Co. v. ITO (2012) 344 ITR 329, clearly brings out the scope and ambit of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) and supports the assessee’s case. 41. It is also an undisputed fact that in the assessee’s own case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal has held that penalties levied by the stock exchange on account of similar operational lapses are allowable as business expenditu…

AJANTA PHARMA LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4785/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…l pronouncements, viz. Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (SSI) Vs. Central Board of Direct taxes (2013) 353 ITR 388 (Himachal Pradesh); ACIT, Circle 6(3), Mumbai Vs. Liva Healthcare Ltd. (2016) 161 ITD 63 (Mum); J.K Panthaki & Co. Vs. ITO (2012) 344 ITR 329 (Kar); and CIT Vs. Gill & Co. (P). Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 362 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards distributing freebies to the medical practitioners and the doctors was against the public policy, therefore, the same was not allowable as a deduction as per ‘Explanation’ to Sec. 37(1) of the…

AJANTA PHARMA LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4784/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…l pronouncements, viz. Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (SSI) Vs. Central Board of Direct taxes (2013) 353 ITR 388 (Himachal Pradesh); ACIT, Circle 6(3), Mumbai Vs. Liva Healthcare Ltd. (2016) 161 ITD 63 (Mum); J.K Panthaki & Co. Vs. ITO (2012) 344 ITR 329 (Kar); and CIT Vs. Gill & Co. (P). Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 362 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards distributing freebies to the medical practitioners and the doctors was against the public policy, therefore, the same was not allowable as a deduction as per ‘Explanation’ to Sec. 37(1) of the…

(2013) 353 ITR 388 (Himachal Pradesh); ACIT, Circle 6(3), Mumbai v. Liva Healthcare Ltd. (344 ITR 329) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax