CIT v. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. (181 ITR 59)

ANUNTA TECHNOLOGIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2946/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleanunta Technologies Management V. Dcit Circle- 12(1)(1) Services Limited Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor Level 2, Block B6 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Nirlon Knowledge Park Off Western Express Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063 Pan: Aakca6159M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Dinkle Haria Department Represented By : Shri S. Anbuselvam

…diture were incurred on raising fresh capital for purpose of running the business therefore the same would be in nature of revenue expenses. 4. The Appellant relies on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT v/s. Glaxo Laboratories India Ltd. - [(1990) 181 ITR 59 (Bom)] The Bombay high court held that the Court must look to the object and purpose of the expenditure from the point of view of the businessman. In the instant case, it was established upon the Tribunal's finding that the assessee 13 Anunta Technologies Management Services Limited had no need for funds. It was established that it had need of th…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1359/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―C ‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 2934/Del /2010 2002-03 U/s 143(3) 1359/Del/2011 2002-03 u/s 147 rws 143(3) The Deputy Commissioner of IFCI LIMITED Vs. Income Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) 61 Nehru Place C R Building New Delhi I P Estate PAN: AAACT0668G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA/ Co No Assessment Year 262 Del 2010 2002-03 In ITA No 2934/Del/2010 123/Del/2011 2002-03 In ITA No 1359 Del 2011 IFCI LIMITED The Deputy Commissioner Vs. IFCI Towers of Income Tax…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IFCI, NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2934/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―C ‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No Assessment Year 2934/Del /2010 2002-03 U/s 143(3) 1359/Del/2011 2002-03 u/s 147 rws 143(3) The Deputy Commissioner of IFCI LIMITED Vs. Income Tax IFCI Towers Circle – 11(1) 61 Nehru Place C R Building New Delhi I P Estate PAN: AAACT0668G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA/ Co No Assessment Year 262 Del 2010 2002-03 In ITA No 2934/Del/2010 123/Del/2011 2002-03 In ITA No 1359 Del 2011 IFCI LIMITED The Deputy Commissioner Vs. IFCI Towers of Income Tax…

M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 37/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 56(2)

…our attention was drawn to the scope of work for M/s. Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., noted in para 4 of this agreement. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd., as reported in 181 ITR 59. In this case, we find that in that case, the facts were that the assessee applied for the Government of India’s permission to enter into a fresh technical collaboration so that it could continue to obtain the benefit of research being carried out by the parent company and also day-to-day advice in respect of the manufacture of existing and new pr…

M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2541/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 56(2)

…our attention was drawn to the scope of work for M/s. Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., noted in para 4 of this agreement. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd., as reported in 181 ITR 59. In this case, we find that in that case, the facts were that the assessee applied for the Government of India’s permission to enter into a fresh technical collaboration so that it could continue to obtain the benefit of research being carried out by the parent company and also day-to-day advice in respect of the manufacture of existing and new pr…

SRI CHAMUNDESWARI SUGARS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

ITA 1499/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.88/5, Richmond Road, Income Tax, Bangalore. Circle - 6(1)(2), Pan : Aaccs 5004 R Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr-I Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…T Vs. R.R.Industries Limited [1256/Madras/2011] b. Nimbus Communication Ltd Vs. ACIT [132TTJ351](Mumbai Bench) c. CIT Vs. Crompton Engg.Co.LTd [ 242ITR317(Madras)] 7. The honorable Bombay High court in case of CIT Vs. Glaxo Laboratories(India) Ltd reported in 181 ITR 59, it has been held that the court must look into the objects and purpose of the expenditure from the point of view of the businessman. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to considered that the company has not received any Carbon credit during the Assessment year 2012-13 nor any Carbon credit accrued to the company. CIT(A…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2966/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…and statutory requirement and hence the same cannot be treated as Capital Expenditure. In support of these contentions, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decisions rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Glaxo Pharmaceuticals Ltd (181 ITR 59). The Ld A.R further submitted that the funds received from share capital issued by the assessee shall be used for 7 M/s. Bank of India working capital purposes only, since the money is ‘stock in trade’ for the assessee. He submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided, in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd (supra), the issue relating to expens…

CIT v. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd.

Judgments citing CIT v. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd.