What is CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. authority for?

A taxpayer is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA for developing and operating infrastructure facilities, with the decision clarifying the distinction between a contractor and a developer for this purpose.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (324 ITR 199), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(2), Section 194C, Section 80-IA, Section 143(3).

CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (324 ITR 199)

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.3384/Mum/2014 - Assessment year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No.3385/Mum/2014 - Assessment year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 - Assessment year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No.4562/Mum/2017 - Assessment year: 2011-12 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited vs Addl CIT, Range 6(2), Mumbai Room No.669, 5th Floor, (Erstwhile known as Goodlas Nerolac Paints Limited), Nerolac Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDE…

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

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.3384/Mum/2014 - Assessment year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No.3385/Mum/2014 - Assessment year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 - Assessment year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No.4562/Mum/2017 - Assessment year: 2011-12 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited vs Addl CIT, Range 6(2), Mumbai Room No.669, 5th Floor, (Erstwhile known as Goodlas Nerolac Paints Limited), Nerolac Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDE…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.3384/Mum/2014 - Assessment year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No.3385/Mum/2014 - Assessment year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 - Assessment year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No.4562/Mum/2017 - Assessment year: 2011-12 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited vs Addl CIT, Range 6(2), Mumbai Room No.669, 5th Floor, (Erstwhile known as Goodlas Nerolac Paints Limited), Nerolac Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDE…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.3384/Mum/2014 - Assessment year: 2008-09 I.T.A. No.3385/Mum/2014 - Assessment year: 2009-10 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 - Assessment year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No.4562/Mum/2017 - Assessment year: 2011-12 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited vs Addl CIT, Range 6(2), Mumbai Room No.669, 5th Floor, (Erstwhile known as Goodlas Nerolac Paints Limited), Nerolac Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDE…

ACIT (TDS) Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Sadashiva Sugars Limited, Bagalkot

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/PAN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayraghavanFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 133ASection 271CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.62/PAN./2020 Assessment Year 2014-2015 The ACIT (TDS), Circle- M/s. Sadashiva Sugars Panaji, Pundalik Niwas, Ltd., [aka. M/s. EID Parry Ground Floor, Ruo-de- (India) Ltd.], NH-50, vs. Ourem, Panaji-Goa. Nagaral Nainegali, PIN – 403 001 Bagalkot District. Karnataka. PIN-587 207 PAN AAICS8468F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth For Assessee : Shri Vikram Vijayraghavan Date of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date of Pr…

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…al guarantee given by the assessee to bank on behalf of its AE. We ordered accordingly. 5. Facts remain unchanged. The Tribunal has decided the issue in light of decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 439 (Bom), where the Hon'ble High Court has upheld 0.5% commission on corporate guarantee. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP filed by the revenue in Civil Appeal No. 12632/2017, vide order dated 11/12/2018. Thus, the issue is being finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The revenue fails to bring on record any contrary decis…

ACIT (OSD)-2(2), Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1163/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1163/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Acit(Osd)(Tds)-2(2) बिधम/ Shoppers Stop Ltd Room No. 706, 7Th Floor, K. 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Malad Link Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road Minidspace, Malad (W), (W), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manan Mathuria Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 12.03.2021 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Holding That, The Payments Made By The Assessee To Several Vendors In Relation To Its Procurements From Them, Consisting Of Appeals/Clothes/Footwear/Goods Manufactured By These Vendors, Were Not In The Nature Of “Works Contract” But “Purchase Of Goods” & That, Therefore, The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Invoked By The Assessing Officer In Relation Thereto, Were Not Applicable.

For Appellant: Shri Manan MathuriaFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1163/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) ACIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2) बिधम/ Shoppers Stop Ltd Room No. 706, 7th Floor, K. 5th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Malad Link Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road Minidspace, Malad (W), (W), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCS4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Manan Mathuria Revenue by: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (DR) सुनवाई की…

DCIT (OSD) (TDS) -2 (2), Mumbai vs. Shopppers Stop Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1783/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Acit (Osd) Tds 2(2), M/S Shoppers Stop Limited Room No 706, 7Th Fl.., K.G Mittal 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Malad Link Road, Charni Road (W), Minidspace, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai-400064 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri .Vijay Mehta/Shri Manan Mathuriya Revenue By: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri .Vijay Mehta/Shri MananFor Respondent: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan (DR)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

…s under Sales or Return arrangement and that it was not in the nature of works contract as contemplated u/s 194C of the Act. For this, the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd (324 ITR 199). The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly held that the assessee did not have any liability to deduct tax at source u/s 194C of the Act and thus deleted the demand raised by the AO u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us on the following grounds: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle -5, Pune vs. Serum Institute of India Pvt Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

…isdictional High Court held that the corporate guarantee fees charged at the rate of 0.5% cannot be called in question. The ratio of this decision was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 398 ITR 439. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is based on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. referred to supra. 10. In view of the above, we find no illegality and perversity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) restricting the TP adjustment on account corporate guarantee commission at the rate of 0.5%. Hence, we…

M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 2295/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (PAN: AABCB0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of 129, Park Street Income-tax Vs. Kolkata-17 Circle-10(1) (PAN: AABCB0976E) Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri…

M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 2294/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (PAN: AABCB0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of 129, Park Street Income-tax Vs. Kolkata-17 Circle-10(1) (PAN: AABCB0976E) Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 918/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (PAN: AABCB0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of 129, Park Street Income-tax Vs. Kolkata-17 Circle-10(1) (PAN: AABCB0976E) Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 917/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (PAN: AABCB0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & ITA Nos.2294 & 2295/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of 129, Park Street Income-tax Vs. Kolkata-17 Circle-10(1) (PAN: AABCB0976E) Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri…

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. Assistamt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 758/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Shivastava

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 80ISection 92B

…n the like transaction. Hence, no transfer pricing adjustment could be made in respect of guarantee commission on the basis of bank rate and this ratio was followed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (398 ITR 439) and CIT Vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (417 ITR 479). In the present case, though the assessee has not charged any fee from its AE for providing bank guarantee for loan availed by its AEs, the assessee company had voluntarily offered to tax guarantee commission @ 0.8% p.a. In the preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2010-11, the Coordinate Bench of this…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…frastructure) needed to carry out the desired work to the contractor who by applying his labour to the said material turns the material into a desired product. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in [2010]324 ITR 199/191 Taxman 455 has held that in 'works contract', the contractor would be provided materials and all other requirements in the process of manufacture and production. The contractor merely carries the work with the materials supplied by the contractee and knowledge supplied by the contractee. At this juncture, it is also imperative to appreciate t…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…frastructure) needed to carry out the desired work to the contractor who by applying his labour to the said material turns the material into a desired product. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in [2010]324 ITR 199/191 Taxman 455 has held that in 'works contract', the contractor would be provided materials and all other requirements in the process of manufacture and production. The contractor merely carries the work with the materials supplied by the contractee and knowledge supplied by the contractee. At this juncture, it is also imperative to appreciate t…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…frastructure) needed to carry out the desired work to the contractor who by applying his labour to the said material turns the material into a desired product. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in [2010]324 ITR 199/191 Taxman 455 has held that in 'works contract', the contractor would be provided materials and all other requirements in the process of manufacture and production. The contractor merely carries the work with the materials supplied by the contractee and knowledge supplied by the contractee. At this juncture, it is also imperative to appreciate t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 1468/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. M.Narmada, Sr.DR-I

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…ases of Laxmi Industries Ltd. Co. & Ors vs. ITO 7 Anr. (Raj) 231 ITR 514 wherein it is held that an explanation brought in the statute book is ordinarily clarificatory in nature and has retrospective effect and (ii) CIT vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Bam) 324 ITR 199 wherein it is held that amendment to remove ambiguity has retrospective effect. In view of the above, the CSR expenditure of Rs. 1,91,70,559/-claimed by the assessee company is not an allowable expenditure for deduction as per the provisions, of explanation-2 of sec.37 of the Act. Hence, the same is disallowed and added to the total income. 5.2 D…

M/S. R System International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6249/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. & Shri A.TFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

…on the following decisions: (i) Emami Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 337 ITR 470 (Cal) (ii) CIT vs. Jupiter Bio Science Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 113 (Karn) (iii) CIT v. National Diary Development Board (2017) 397 ITR 543 (Guj) (iv) CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 439 (Bom) (v) Pr. CIT v. NHPC Ltd. (2017) 399 ITR 275 (P&H) (vi) CIT vs. Kirloskar Systems Ltd., (2014) 220 Taxmann.1 (karn.) 15. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 16. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of the record it can be seen that as t…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Construction Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, Aayakarbhavan, 4Th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani / Ms. Shweta Mahadik, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4th floor, AayakarBhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACH0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, AayakarBhavan, 4th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11th floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West),…

CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

What is CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

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

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

ACIT (TDS) Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Sadashiva Sugars Limited, Bagalkot

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

ACIT (OSD)-2(2), Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT (OSD) (TDS) -2 (2), Mumbai vs. Shopppers Stop Ltd, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle -5, Pune vs. Serum Institute of India Pvt Ltd., Pune

M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., Kolkata

D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., Kolkata

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. Assistamt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3, Aurangabad

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited, Hyderabad

M/S. R System International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Construction Ltd, Mumbai