CIT v. Alchemic (P) Ltd.

130 ITR 168High Court1981#3198 most cited

What is CIT v. Alchemic (P) Ltd. authority for?

Debt forgiveness constituting a monetary benefit does not attract Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. Such a benefit is not income arising from business or profession.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Alchemic (P) Ltd. · 130 ITR 168 · Section 28(iv) · debt forgiveness · monetary benefit · business income · income from profession

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 28(i)Section 28(iv)Section 36(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)waiver of loansection 28(i)section 28(iv)non-compete feesection 43(1)commercial rightsright to receivefull value of considerationsection 41(1)lack of enquirysection 41

Judgments citing CIT v. Alchemic (P) Ltd.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

ITA 1898/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon'Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 28

…he benefit by way of ‘debt forgiveness' which is a monetary benefit, the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act, cannot be applied. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. reported in 130 ITR 168. 7. The Assessing Officer, after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act, observed that going by the date of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties dt.13.01.2010, a significant risk and rewards which arisen out of this agreement have been transferr…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 1897/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 28

…he benefit by way of ‘debt forgiveness’ which is a monetary benefit, the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act, cannot be applied. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. reported in 130 ITR 168. 7. The Assessing Officer, after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act, observed that going by the date of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties dt.13.01.2010, a significant risk and rewards which arisen out of this agreement have been transferr…

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

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

ITA 757/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…not, which means the benefits have to be in the kind, the monetary benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court) (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court) (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC) 12. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the grou…

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

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

ITA 756/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…not, which means the benefits have to be in the kind, the monetary benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court) (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court) (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC) 12. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the grou…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

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

ITA 489/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…not, which means the benefits have to be in the kind, the monetary benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court) (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court) (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC) 12. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the grou…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4, , PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

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

ITA 488/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…not, which means the benefits have to be in the kind, the monetary benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court) (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court) (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC) 12. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the grou…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMRUT PRASAD PATNAM , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1894/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…um of Rs.1,62,09,305/- should not taxed u/s.41(1) of the Act. 29. The assessee made elaborate submission stating that the provisions of section 28(iv) or 41(1) are not applicable to him. He also relied on the decision in the case of CIT VS. Alchemic Pvt Ltd (130 ITR 168). 30. However, the AO was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 1,62,09,305/- by observing as under:- “ All the above-mentioned contentions of the assessee considered carefully, but the same is not acceptable for the following reasons. Though the assessee has agreed that it has benefitted by way of f…

P AMRUTH PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1707/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…um of Rs.1,62,09,305/- should not taxed u/s.41(1) of the Act. 29. The assessee made elaborate submission stating that the provisions of section 28(iv) or 41(1) are not applicable to him. He also relied on the decision in the case of CIT VS. Alchemic Pvt Ltd (130 ITR 168). 30. However, the AO was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 1,62,09,305/- by observing as under:- “ All the above-mentioned contentions of the assessee considered carefully, but the same is not acceptable for the following reasons. Though the assessee has agreed that it has benefitted by way of f…

P AMRUTHA PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1706/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…um of Rs.1,62,09,305/- should not taxed u/s.41(1) of the Act. 29. The assessee made elaborate submission stating that the provisions of section 28(iv) or 41(1) are not applicable to him. He also relied on the decision in the case of CIT VS. Alchemic Pvt Ltd (130 ITR 168). 30. However, the AO was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 1,62,09,305/- by observing as under:- “ All the above-mentioned contentions of the assessee considered carefully, but the same is not acceptable for the following reasons. Though the assessee has agreed that it has benefitted by way of f…

SRINIVAS UPPU ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1705/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…um of Rs.1,62,09,305/- should not taxed u/s.41(1) of the Act. 29. The assessee made elaborate submission stating that the provisions of section 28(iv) or 41(1) are not applicable to him. He also relied on the decision in the case of CIT VS. Alchemic Pvt Ltd (130 ITR 168). 30. However, the AO was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 1,62,09,305/- by observing as under:- “ All the above-mentioned contentions of the assessee considered carefully, but the same is not acceptable for the following reasons. Though the assessee has agreed that it has benefitted by way of f…

SRINIVAS UPPU,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1704/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…um of Rs.1,62,09,305/- should not taxed u/s.41(1) of the Act. 29. The assessee made elaborate submission stating that the provisions of section 28(iv) or 41(1) are not applicable to him. He also relied on the decision in the case of CIT VS. Alchemic Pvt Ltd (130 ITR 168). 30. However, the AO was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 1,62,09,305/- by observing as under:- “ All the above-mentioned contentions of the assessee considered carefully, but the same is not acceptable for the following reasons. Though the assessee has agreed that it has benefitted by way of f…

ACIT CENT. CIR5(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. INFINITE BUILDCON PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2241/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19
Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(x)

…ereas the waiver of loan was in cash. Hence, clause (iv) of section 28 was not attracted at all. While arriving at that conclusion, the Bombay High Court in fact referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Alchemic (P) Ltd. [1981] 130 ITR 168. The Gujarat High Court in the said case has held that the benefit or perquisite arising from business as construed in section 28(iv) would not include cash receipt. The Court observed that it is only if the benefit or perquisite is not in cash or money, that section 28(iv) would apply and the question of including the value of such benefit or pe…

DCIT CC7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-7(2) Vs. M/s Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point MK Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACM2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Smt Shailja Rai.DR Respondent by : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR Date of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order passed by…

AURANGABAD ELECTRICALS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, Midc Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aacca2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 14A

…t, which means the benefits have to be in the kind, the monetary benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court). (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court). (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court). (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat). (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC). 15. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. AURANGABAD ELECTRICALS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, Midc Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aacca2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 14A

…t, which means the benefits have to be in the kind, the monetary benefits are not covered by the said provisions of the Act as in the catena of following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court). (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court). (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court). (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat). (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC). 15. In the light of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. HALDEX INDIA PVT.LTD,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 852/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.852/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik Vs. Haldex India Pvt. Ltd., B-71, Midc, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabch9044B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar & Shri Viksit Bhargava Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik Dated 01.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Nashik Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,58,41,000/- Made U/S 28(Iv) Of The Act On Account Of Octroi Refund Treating It Revenue In Nature. 02. The Order Of The Cit(A) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer May Be Restored. 03. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete Any Ground Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Onkar &For Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 28

…d that the provisions of section 28(iv) have no application to the monetary benefits received by the respondent-assessee placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Indokem Ltd., 132 ITR 125 (Bombay High Court). (ii) CIT vs. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., 130 ITR 168 (Gujarat High Court). (iii) Ravinder Singh vs. CIT, 205 ITR 353 (Delhi High Court). (iv) CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat). (v) CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd., 219 ITR 644 (SC). 5. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. Sr. DR contended that…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. KAPTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1864/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…Ltd. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 32 (SC) and also supported the order of the CIT(Appeals). He also relied on the following decisions:- CIT v. Compaq Electric Ltd., 204 Taxman 58 (Kar) CIT v. Chetan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 267 ITR 770 (Guj) CIT V. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 168 (Guj) 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the assessee borrowed loan as long term unsecured loan at Rs.2,55,35,871/ This amount has been waived in the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has taken this amount as income in the Profit & Loss account. However, while computing income of t…

ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI vs. ZEN ENERGY CONSULTANTS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2796/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Zen Energy Consultants P. Circle – 27 (2) Vs Ltd. New Delhi C-349, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan No.Aaacz2992H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 28

…e assessee. The provisions of section 28 (iv) of the Act do not apply on the transaction of the assessee as no benefits or perquisites have been received otherwise then in cash. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Alchemic Private Limited 130 ITR 168 has held that “Question of including the value of the benefit or perquisites would arise only if the benefit or the perquisites is not in cash for money”. 10. Considering the fact in totality we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Decision announced…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 16 (1), MUMBAI vs. BBC WORLDWIDE MEDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit -16(1), Vs. M/S. Bbc World Wide Room No. 439, 4Th Media Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai – Construction House A, 400 020. Off Linking Road, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052 Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2307F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.C T Mathew. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Siddhesh Chougle. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 92C

…n order oF Shah Sohonie and Company Vs State of Rajasthan and Others 208 ITR 321(RA] HC); and Shreeram Durga Prasad1R.B.) vs. Settlement Commission 11989] 176 ITR 169 (SC). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Alchemic (P.) Ltd.: [1981] 130 ITR 168 (Guj), Decision: ITA No. 158 & 2770/Mum/2019 M/s BBC World Wide Media Pvt Ltd., Mumbai I have gone through the AO's order and appellant's submission. The appellant ha relied on the following decisions which are reproduced for clarity of the issue: (1) Siemen Public Communication Network (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore* [2017]…

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…come which can be taxed under s. 28(iv) must not only be referable to a benefit or perquisite, but it must be arising from business. Secondly, s. 28(iv) does not apply to benefits in cash or money [see CIT vs. Alchemic (P) Ltd. (1981) 20 CTR (Guj) 83 : (1981) 130 ITR 168 (Guj)] ….." (ii) Benefit or perquisite must be one arising in the course of business.” 36.6. Moreover, we find, the credits received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cas…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2