What is Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies on freebies provided to medical practitioners is not deductible under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, as such gifting is prohibited by the Medical Council Regulations, 2002. The court also held that what is directly prohibited by law cannot be indirectly evaded through contrivance.

How many judgments cite Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

148 judgments on BharatTax cite Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (135 Taxmann.com 286), spanning 2022 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 115JB, Section 14A, Section 80JJAA, Section 36(1)(va), Section 2(24)(xviii).

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (135 Taxmann.com 286)

ITO, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Coimbatore vs. M/S Surabii Gold, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 372/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 372/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Surabii Gold, Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), V. 138, Karuppa Gounder Street, Aayakar Bhavan, K G Street, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan: Abufs-6503-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

…s. Vidhiyasekaran Pradeep Malliraj vs ITO (Supra). We have gone through case law relied upon by the ld. DR, and we find that, in the said case, the Tribunal after considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd vs DCIT (135 Taxmann.com 236), held :-40-: ITA. No: 372/Chny/2023 that, one arm of the law cannot be utilized to defeat the other arm of law and doing so would be opposed to public policy and bring the law into ridicule. In our considered view, the case law relied upon by the ld. DR is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that, the…

Dy.CIT. CC.5(2) Cent. RG. -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2574/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter “Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai Dated 31.08.2020 & Order Dated 10.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Ay. 2013-14 Respectively. Since Issues In Both The Years Were The Same, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Agreed That There Is No Change Of Facts Or Position In Law Across Both These Years & Therefore Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. We Accordingly Dispose Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)

Section 115JSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT-CC-5(2) बिधम/ M/s. USV Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACU1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue by: Smt…

Dy.CIT C C 5(2) Central RG-5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Usv Private Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2356/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter “Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai Dated 31.08.2020 & Order Dated 10.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Ay. 2013-14 Respectively. Since Issues In Both The Years Were The Same, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Agreed That There Is No Change Of Facts Or Position In Law Across Both These Years & Therefore Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. We Accordingly Dispose Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)

Section 115JSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT-CC-5(2) बिधम/ M/s. USV Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACU1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue by: Smt…

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA(TP).No.2365 and 2366/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. D.C.I.T, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House, Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Dinesh Hall, Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380009. PAN: AAACT5456A And Asstt. Year 2015-16 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House, Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Dinesh Hall, Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. PAN: AAACT5456A आयकर अपील सं./ITA.…

Med-Link Devices (P) Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 51, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3321/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Upender KothiyalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 153Section 250Section 37(1)

…der the head “business promotion expenditure” is not clear. Med–Link Devices Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.3321/Mum./2023 11. We find that the learned CIT(A) has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2022] 442 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held that since the acceptance of freebies by medical practitioners was punishable as per Circular issued by Medical Council of India under MCI regulations, 2002, gifting of such freebies by pharmaceutical company to medical practitioners would also be prohibited by law and thus, expenditure incurred in distribution of such fre…

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 1921/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 1922/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1923/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2012-13) C.O. No. 128/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2010-11) C.O. No. 131/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2011-12) C.O. No. 130/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2012-13) Vs. DCIT, Circle-3(4) M/s. Lupin Limited 7th Floor, Kalpataru 29th Floor Inspire, Off Western Center 1, World Express Highway Trade Centre Santacruz East Cuffe Parade Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 005. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 394/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2010-11…

M/S.Karannur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, WD-1(2), Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

…in CIT v. Prakash Chand Lunia v. CIT [2023] 454 ITR 61 (SC) again clarified, with reference to it’s earlier decisions, this aspect in the context of deductibility of expenditure of an illegal business (also refer Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2022] 442 ITR 1 (SC)). We are, with respect, therefore not in agreement with the Tribunal in The Citizen CSL (supra) to the extent it states that violation of BRA has no bearing on the penalty u/ss. 271D/E. A reasonable cause, sure, essentially a matter of fact, has to have it’s genesis in a bona fide conduct, which cannot, without sufficient justification, be asc…

The Karannur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, WD-1(2), Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

…in CIT v. Prakash Chand Lunia v. CIT [2023] 454 ITR 61 (SC) again clarified, with reference to it’s earlier decisions, this aspect in the context of deductibility of expenditure of an illegal business (also refer Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2022] 442 ITR 1 (SC)). We are, with respect, therefore not in agreement with the Tribunal in The Citizen CSL (supra) to the extent it states that violation of BRA has no bearing on the penalty u/ss. 271D/E. A reasonable cause, sure, essentially a matter of fact, has to have it’s genesis in a bona fide conduct, which cannot, without sufficient justification, be asc…

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

…s carried illegally, the same is disallowable only in view of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. That is, the same would stand to be disallowed even if the assessee had disclosed the income of such business (Apex Laboratories P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2022] 442 ITR 1 (SC)). Further, even as the said Explanation has been on the statute for several years now, its application qua an illegal business gets resolved only now by the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Praksash Chand Lunia (supra); the Hon'ble Apex Court itself granting stay on recovery of tax in the case of Arun Thomas (supra). 3.9 In our opinion, therefo…

The ACIT - 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 1777/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

Section 143Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 1620/MUM/2020 (Assessment Year 2016-17) Pfizer Limited ACIT- 14(2)(2) The Capital, 1802/ 1901, Plot No. Room No. 461, Fourth Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACP3334M ITA No. 1777/MUM/2020 (Assessment Year 2016-17) ACIT- 14(2)(2) Pfizer Limited Room No. 461, Fourth Floor, The Capital, 1802/ 1901, Plot No. Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-4000…

Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ACIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 1620/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

Section 143Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 1620/MUM/2020 (Assessment Year 2016-17) Pfizer Limited ACIT- 14(2)(2) The Capital, 1802/ 1901, Plot No. Room No. 461, Fourth Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACP3334M ITA No. 1777/MUM/2020 (Assessment Year 2016-17) ACIT- 14(2)(2) Pfizer Limited Room No. 461, Fourth Floor, The Capital, 1802/ 1901, Plot No. Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-4000…

Pfizer Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 3736/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

Section 143Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 1620/MUM/2020 (Assessment Year 2016-17) Pfizer Limited ACIT- 14(2)(2) The Capital, 1802/ 1901, Plot No. Room No. 461, Fourth Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACP3334M ITA No. 1777/MUM/2020 (Assessment Year 2016-17) ACIT- 14(2)(2) Pfizer Limited Room No. 461, Fourth Floor, The Capital, 1802/ 1901, Plot No. Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-4000…

DCIT - 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

ITA 3694/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani CIT DR

Section 143Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 1620/MUM/2020 (Assessment Year 2016-17) Pfizer Limited ACIT- 14(2)(2) The Capital, 1802/ 1901, Plot No. Room No. 461, Fourth Floor, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACP3334M ITA No. 1777/MUM/2020 (Assessment Year 2016-17) ACIT- 14(2)(2) Pfizer Limited Room No. 461, Fourth Floor, The Capital, 1802/ 1901, Plot No. Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-4000…

Heart Foundation of India, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1524/MUM/2023[2023-24]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 12ASection 143(3)

…1 ITA 1524/Mum/2023 Heart Foundation of India IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1524/Mum/2023 Heart Foundation of India vs Commissioner of Income Tax- 5th Floor, Hemdil, Linking Road Central, Pune Bodhi Tower, Aaykar Sadan, 6th Santacruz (West), Mumbai AAAAH0500R Floor 548/2b, Gultekadi, Salisbury Park, Pune 411 037 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Dr. K Shivram A/w Mr. Sashi Bekal Department represented by Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR Date of hearing 12-07-2023 Date of pronouncem…

Asst Comm of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Aristo Pharmceuticals Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 310/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Kumar Rastogi & Ms.Shilpi KeshriFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai(CIT-DR)

Section 115Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner of M/s. Aristo Income tax, Circl-2(1)(1), Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 575, 5th Floor, 3rd Floor, Mercantile Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, M.K. Road, 12 J N Heredia Marg, Mumbai- 400 020. Ballard Estate, PAN: AAACA4495N Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri. Ajay Kumar Rastogi & Ms.Shilpi Keshri Revenue by : Smt. Shailja Rai(CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 20. 04. 2…