CIT v. Bhor Industries Ltd.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

…CIT (124 ITR 1) for the proposition that expenditure incurred for facilitating business operations without creating a capital asset is allowable as revenue expenditure. 56. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Bhor Industries Ltd. (264 ITR 180) (Bom.)  CIT v. Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd. (108 taxmann.com 116) (Bom.)  Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (121 taxmann.com 303) (Mum Trib.) 57. The assessee submitted that the marketing expenditure was incurred for sale of merchandise on the AJIO platform and not for development of the platform itself. According to the assessee, marke…

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

…CIT (124 ITR 1) for the proposition that expenditure incurred for facilitating business operations without creating a capital asset is allowable as revenue expenditure. 56. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: • CIT v. Bhor Industries Ltd. (264 ITR 180) (Bom.) • CIT v. Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd. (108 taxmann.com 116) (Bom.) • Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (121 taxmann.com 303) (Mum Trib.) 57. The assessee submitted that the marketing expenditure was incurred for sale of merchandise on the AJIO platform and not for development of the platform itself. According to the assessee, marke…

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

…e same treating it as capital expenditure. 6.4 CIT(A)’s Decision (Page 41, para 17.3) Page 68 of 72 The Hon’ble CIT (A) deleted the additions made by the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Bhor Industries Ltd (264 ITR 180). 6.5 Assessee’s submissions  The Assessee submits that this issue is covered in favor of the Assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case for the assessment year 1999-2000, wherein the Tribunal following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhor Industries Ltd (264 IT…

M/S. ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. THE HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Hindustan Unilever Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hindustan Lever Income Tax, Range 1(1) House, 165/166 Backbay Mumbai Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Acit-1(1), Vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Room No. 579, Ltd., 165/166, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Chandip Singh Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assesse & The Revenue Are Pertained To Assessment Year 2000-01 Based On Similar Fact & P A G E | 2

…h expenditure were disallowed by treating as capital expenditure. 43. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bhor Industry Ltd. Vs. CIT 264 ITR 180. The ld. Counsel submitted that similar issue on identical facts has been decided by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself for A.Y. 1999-2000. The ld. D.R could not controvert the same. We have perused the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself vide ITA No. 1244/Mum/2005 for AY 1999-2000 wherein after following th…

M/S. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (TDS)-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Hindustan Unilever Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hindustan Lever Income Tax, Range 1(1) House, 165/166 Backbay Mumbai Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Acit-1(1), Vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Room No. 579, Ltd., 165/166, Backbay Aayakar Bhavan, Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach1004N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Chandip Singh Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assesse & The Revenue Are Pertained To Assessment Year 2000-01 Based On Similar Fact & P A G E | 2

…h expenditure were disallowed by treating as capital expenditure. 43. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bhor Industry Ltd. Vs. CIT 264 ITR 180. The ld. Counsel submitted that similar issue on identical facts has been decided by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself for A.Y. 1999-2000. The ld. D.R could not controvert the same. We have perused the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself vide ITA No. 1244/Mum/2005 for AY 1999-2000 wherein after following th…

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 5577 (Delhi) of 2004. ITA.No,3890&4364/5063&5483/5165&5043/5166&5044/Mum/2016 M/s. Welspun Corp Ltd, Mumbai. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (82 ITR 363)(SC); CIT vs. India Discount Co.Ltd. (75 ITR 191) (SC); Bhor Industries vs. CIT (264 ITR 180) (Bom); and Kalpana Palace V/s. CIT 275 ITR 365 8.2.13 One can, therefore, safely conclude from the aforesaid judgments and circulars of the Board that the taxability of the incentive received by way of subsidy, reimbursement or exemption has to be determined keeping in mind the purpose/object for which it has been granted. If the subsidy, reimbu…

ACIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WYETH LEDERLE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4070/Mum/2005 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2000-01) Acit-7(3) बिधम/ M/S. Wyeth Ltd. Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Level 6 & 7, Plating Plot Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. No. C-59, G- Block Bkc, Road, Mumbai-400020. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400098. Cross Objection No. 376/Mum/2005 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.4070/Mum/2005 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) M/S. Wyeth Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-7(3) Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Level 6 & 7, Plating Plot Vs. No. C-59, G- Block Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400098. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Rajnandani Shukla Revenue By: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Mumbai Dated 22.03.2005 For The Ay. 2000-01. 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue & Only Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Co Are Dealt Together. The Ground Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Directing The Ao To Delete The Addition Of Rs.21,54,713/- (20% Of The Expenditure Of Rs.1,07,73,564/-).

…this Tribunal for AY 1984-85 and AY 1985-86 held in favour of the assessee on this issue. And we note that the Ld. CIT(A) for given relief to the assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. (264 ITR 180) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that expenses relating to Voluntary Retirement Scheme is revenue expenditure and must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which incurred. We also note this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY. 1999-2000 (supra) has upheld the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, respectfully following th…

ACIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WYETH LEDERLE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 7(3) Vs. M/S Wyeth Ltd Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Mk Road, Worli Level 6& 7 Plating Mumbai – 400 020. Plot No. C-59, G Block Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 7(3) Vs. M/S Wyeth Ltd Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Mk Road, Worli Level 6& 7 Plating Mumbai – 400 020. Plot No. C-59, G Block Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A Appellant .. Respondent

…to sec 80HHC(3) in respect of export benefit of INR. 1,12,80,893/- 7. On the third disputed issue with respect to disallowance of expenditure incurred under voluntary retirement scheme. Ld. AR relied on the decision of i.CIT Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd., [2003] 264 ITR 180 (Bom); CI Vs. P.I Industires Ltd, [2010] 321 ITR 180(Raj); iii. CIT Vs. Orient Paper & Industires Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 680 (Cal); vi. KEC international Ltd Vs. DCIT, [2013] 20 ITR (T) 282 (Mum). We refer to the findings of the CIT(A) at Para 14 as under: ITA No. 2912/Mum/2005, 2285/Mum/2007 & CO. 184/Mum/2007. The AO has relied upon certain deci…

M/S. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD vs. THE DY CIT 1(1),

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Hindustan Unilever Limited, (formerly Hindustan Lever Limited), Unilever House, B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099 [PAN: AAACH1004N] ……………… Appellant Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No. 579, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Respondent Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No. 579, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………… Appellant Hindustan Lever Limited,…

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DIT (I.T), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. The Director Of Income-Tax (It) 3Rd Floor, Tax Department 1St Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. Road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash

…d not to secure any advantage in the capital field but to enable the bank to operate its business more efficiently and competitively The payments are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37 (1).  Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. [264 ITR 180] has held that VRS Expenditure as 5 Standard Chartered Bank deductible as revenue expenditure based on the criteria of commercial expediency  An order in consonance with the decision of Jurisdictional High Court cannot be erroneous so as to justify revision u's 263 of the Act. The assessee also relied uponthe following judgments (i). CIT Vs Simp…

ASHISH LIFE SCIENCE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT-CIRCLE-9(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 964/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-Cir, 9(1)(2) 210, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 213, Laxmi Plaza Industrial Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb4093N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Through National Faceless Appeal Center Which Is Bad In Law & Invalid. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Without. Considering The Written Submissions Filed By The Appellant. As Such, The Order Is

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 964/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ ACIT-CIR, 9(1)(2) 210, 2nd Floor, Aayakar 213, Laxmi Plaza Industrial Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCB4093N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue by: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 22/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date…

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 year it is incurred. Thus, VRS payment even if treated as deferred revenue expenditure by the assessee are allowable in the year in which they are incurred. The ld. CIT(A) relied on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs Bhor Industries (264 ITR 180). The ld. CIT(A) also observed that that provisions of section 35DDA of the Act were made effective from the AY 2001-02. In this regards, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT (Jodh) in case of P.I. Industries Ltd Vs CIT (206 ITR(AT) 206) which was subsequently confirmed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. In view of the above, the ld.…

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

…1998-99 viz. ACIT Vs. Nicholas Piramal (I) ltd. (2014) 147 ITR 675 (Mum). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal in its aforesaid order by following the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 180 (Bom) had vacated the disallowance of the VRS expenditure made by the A.O, and had concluded that the same was allowable as a revenue expenditure. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) could not controvert the aforesaid claim of the counsel for the assessee. 28. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesai…

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

…exercising the option under the ERO scheme, nevertheless the payments were independent statutory payments and did not fall within the scope of Sec 35DDA. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Bhor Industries Limited 264 ITR 180. 4.2.2 Regarding disallowance of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii), it has been submitted that in the original assessment order, it is the categorical finding of Ld. AO that the total amount written-off as bad debts was Rs.1683.69 Crores. This amount of Rs.1683.69 Crores includes Rs.492.26 Crores which is evident from Page-5 of the paper book. Our attenti…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHARDA CROP CHEM PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…and claiming depreciation in the earlier years is concerned, it is suffice to say that entries made in the books of accounts do not decide the true nature of expenditure. We would like to rely upon the case of Bhor Industries of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (264 ITR 180). 5.2. The Hon'ble Courts are of the view that the issue of capital versus revenue expenditure has to be seen from the angle of an assessee rather than an AO. In the case of Edward Keventer (P) Ltd., the honourable Calcutta High Court has held as follows : "The legitimate business needs of the company must be judged from the view-point of the com…

LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

…35DDA (w.e.f. 01/04/2001) by the Finance Act, 2001 (14 of 2001), the assessee was held to be entitled to claim total expenses in relation to VRS, in one year, i.e. Assessment Year 1996-97 under section 37(1) of the Act. CIT vs Bhore Industries Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 180(Bom.), CIT vs Hero Auto Ltd. 343 ITR 342 (Del.) and CIT vs O.E. N. India Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 554 (Kerala). We further note that the law relating to compulsory retirement, which has been crystallized into definite principles, has been summarized in State of Gujarat vs Umedhbhai M. Patel (2010) 3 SCC 314, 320. 2.5. In the light above proposition…