CIT v. Amway India Enterprises

M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

…, he submitted, the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1999-2000. In addition, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs Asahi India Glass Ltd 346 ITR 329 (Del) 2. CIT VS Amway India Enterprise 346 ITR 341 (Del) 3. CIT vs Raychem RPG Ltd 346 ITR 138 (Bom) 26. The learned departmental representative fairly agreed that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. 27. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused materials on record. It is evident, the disallowance has been made on the reasoni…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. A.Y Appellant Respondent No. 1 3076/Mum/2012 2000-01 M/s Larsen ACIT, &Tourbro Ltd., Range 2(2) Taxation Rm No. 577, 5th Department, L&T Floor, House, N.M. Marg, AayakarBhgavan, Bal; lard estate MK Marg, Mumbai. 2 3573/Mum/2012 2000-01 M/s Larsen ACIT, &Tourbro Ltd., Range 2(2) Taxation Rm No. 577, 5th Department, L&T Floor, House, N.M. Marg, AayakarBhgavan, Bal; lard estate MK Marg, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACL0104P अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant…

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. - 7(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan Healthcare Ltd.,) Mumbai - 400020 (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Circle 7(1), Aayakar Ltd.,) Bhavan (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Joshi Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 29/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3927/Mum/2006 & 4066/Mum/2006 For A.Y.2002-03 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)Xix/It-104/05-06 Dated 31/03/2006 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/03/2005 By The Ld. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.

…would not form part of the profit making apparatus of the assessee and would be allowable as a revenue expenditure. Also, we find that a similar view had also been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the High Court that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on purchase of software application and payment made for acquiring license to use those applications was to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that…

M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd vs. Addlcit RG - 7(1)

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Income - Tax Range-7(1), (Earlier Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T, Circle-7 (1), M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. 452, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013

…would not form part of the profit making apparatus of the assessee and would be allowable as a revenue expenditure. Also, we find that a similar view had also been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the High Court that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on purchase of software application and payment made for acquiring license to use those applications was to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that…

DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathapiramal Enterprise Limited Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(3) (Formerly Known As Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013

…would not form part of the profit making apparatus of the assessee and would be allowable as a revenue expenditure. Also, we find that a similar view had also been taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the High Court that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on purchase of software application and payment made for acquiring license to use those applications was to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that…

Godfrey Philips India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

…render the premises in a usual and usable condition by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the said expenditure is purely of revenue nature and has to be allowed. The Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Amway India Enterprises [(2012) 346 ITR 341 (Delhi HC)| 2. CIT v. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 132 (AP HC) 7 M/s. God Frey Philips India Ltd. 3. CIT v. Ayesha Hospitals (P.) Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 266 (MAD.) 4. DCIT v. Lazard India (P.) Ltd. (2010) 41 SOT 72 (Mnmbai Tribunal) 5. Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Lid v. DCIT (2014) 150 ITD 502 (Mirmbai Tribunal) 6. DC1T v. Ch…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…peal for AY 2004-05 in ITA no. 212/Mum/2008 vide appellate order dated 19.03.2018 in assessee‟s own case has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341(Delhi) and CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 329 (Del) . The said order of the tribunal in ITA no. 212/Mum/2008 for AY 2004-05 in assessee‟s own case is placed in file. 12. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 13. We have considered rival contentions and have perused the material on…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…peal for AY 2004-05 in ITA no. 212/Mum/2008 vide appellate order dated 19.03.2018 in assessee‟s own case has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341(Delhi) and CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 329 (Del) . The said order of the tribunal in ITA no. 212/Mum/2008 for AY 2004-05 in assessee‟s own case is placed in file. 12. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 13. We have considered rival contentions and have perused the material on…

Piramal Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodpiramal Healthcare Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Known As Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax- 7(1) Piramal Tower, Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013

…RPG Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 138 (Bom) and PCIT Vs. Holcim Services (South Asia) (2018) 255 Taxman 392 (Bom). Further, support was also drawn by the ld. A.R from the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del). Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. A.R. that in case his aforesaid contention was to be rejected and the expenditure incurred towards purchase of softwares/licenses was to be treated as a capital expenditure, then the assessee would be entitled for claim of depreciation on the value of the same @ 60% and not @ 25% as was allowed by…