CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

324 ITR 199High Court2010#1653 most cited

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.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. · 324 ITR 199 · Section 80IA deduction · infrastructure facility · contractor vs developer · eligibility for deduction · 80IA(4)(i) · business income deduction · tax benefits for developers · infrastructure projects

Also reported as

85 Taxmann.com 349191 Taxmann 455

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 80-IASection 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 80iabsection 17(1)section 80ia(4)(i)section 8osection 35ddsection 92asection 36(l)(va)section 80ia(4)section 36(l)infrastructure facilitysection 36(va)

Judgments citing CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2351/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),…

Essar Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1831/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Essar Ports Ltd. Dcit, 5(1)(2) (Formerly Known As Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, cit D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 92C

…im that the determination of ALP of corporate guarantee commission at 3% by the AO/TPO was substantially on the higher side, the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 439 (Bom), wherein the corporate guarantee commission determined by the Tribunal @ 0.5% was upheld. 15. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue pertaining to the TP adjustment as regards the corporate guarantee commission…

DCIT (TDS 2(1), Mumbai vs. Kodak India P.Tld, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4812/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4812 & 4813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit (Tds) 2(1), R. No. Kodak India P. Ltd., बनाम/ 702, 7Th Floor, Smt K.G. 3Rd Floor, Kalpatru Vs. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Synergy, Vakola, Bldg, Charni Rd, Mumbai Santacruz (E), Mumbai

For Appellant: S/Sh. P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 19Section 194Section 194J

…ork agreement but it was simply an agreement for purchase of a specific battery with the name of the assessee printed on the cell. The Tribunal had followed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 324 ITR 199. Respectfully following the precedent as above, we uphold the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard and decide the issue against the Revenue. In the result, these appeals are partly allowed. 16. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 04/11/2019 – – ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 04/11/2019 SH (…

R Systems International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 690/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 115JSection 154Section 234B

…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 Taxman 1 (Karn). 11 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…

Times Vpl Limited vs. The Commissionr of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

ITA/274/2013HC Karnataka17 Oct 2019

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 260Section 263Section 40

…the fact situation of the case. 9. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel for the assessee has placed reliance in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 231 CTR (Bom) 105 : (2010) 324 ITR 199 and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, 9 (2012) 208 TAXMAN 73 (Kar) as well as Circular No.13 of 2006 dated 13.12.2006 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the Assessing Officer did not exam…

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu) - 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5651/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Glenmark House, Income Tax – Ltu-2, 29Th Floor, Centre-I Hdo Corporate Builsing Wing A,B,D. Sawant Marg World Trade Centre Chakala, Opp. Western Express Cuffe Parade, Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 005 400 099 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg2207L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Income Tax – Ltu-2, Glenmark House, 29Th Floor, Centre-I Hdo Corporate Builsing World Trade Centre Wing A,B,D. Sawant Marg Cuffe Parade, Chakala, Opp. Western Express Mumbai – 400 005 Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg2207L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Glenmark House, Income Tax – LTU-2, 29th Floor, Centre-I HDO Corporate Builsing Wing A,B,D. Sawant Marg World Trade Centre Chakala, Opp. Western Express Cuffe Parade, Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 005 400 099 PAN/GIR No. AAACG2207L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Income Tax – LTU-2, Glenmark House, 29th Floor, Centre-I HDO Corporate Builsing World Trade Centre Wing A,B,D…

Tulasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Guntur

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

ITA 6/VIZ/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 and 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [PAN :AAACT8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. Tulasi Seeds Pvt, . Ltd., Guntur

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

ITA 55/VIZ/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 and 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [PAN :AAACT8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Guntur

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

ITA 167/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 and 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [PAN :AAACT8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A…

Tulasi Seeds Pvt., Ltd., Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Guntur

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

ITA 139/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 and 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [PAN :AAACT8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A…

Godrej Cosumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 14(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1102/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V.Irani- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

…ame. In the impugned AY, the assessee has offered the same @1.5% which has been estimated by the revenue @3%. The Ld. Sr. Counsel, in support, has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V/s ACIT [85 Taxmann.com 349 02/02/2017] as confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 12632/2017 dated 11/12/2018. In the said decision, Hon’ble court has approved the estimation @ 0.53% & 1.47%. This decision has been rendered after considering the decision in CIT V/s Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. [378 ITR 57]. Therefore, respectfully following the higher…

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

ITA 7196/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2007-08

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) ..

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri. Rignesh K. Das (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145ASection 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “K” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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…

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

ITA 6789/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2007-08

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) ..

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri. Rignesh K. Das (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145ASection 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “K” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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…

ACIT (Ltu) - 2, Mumbai vs. Glenmark Generics Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 6431/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 115JSection 80I

…ed upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. 12. The learned Authorised Representative strongly supporting the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 398 ITR 439 (Bom.) following its own decision in Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (supra), has held that corporate guarantee fee of 0.5% is reasonable. He submitted, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble 6 M/s. Glemark Generics Ltd. Jurisdictional High Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, he submitted, there is no reason to interfere with…

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5471/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.5471/Mum./2017 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013 PAN – AAACT1567A v/s Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–7(1), Mumbai ITA no.5583/Mum./2017 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–7(3)(2), Mumbai v/s M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. (Previously known as M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. and…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3613/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…:- (i) BDA Ltd. vs. ITO, 281 ITR 89 (Bom.). (ii) CIT vs. Dabur India Ltd., 283 ITR 197 (Del.). (iii) Dr. Willmar Sochwade India (P) Ltd., ITA NO.160/2006 (Del. HC). (iv) CIT vs. Reebok India Co., 306 ITR 124 (Del.). (v) CIT vs. Glenmark Pharamceuticals Ltd., 324 ITR 199 (Bom.). (vi) DCIT vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (ITA 3703/D/05). (vii) Whirpool India Limited vs. JCIT, 109 TTJ 994 (Del.). (viii) Hero MotoCorp Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.1980/Del/2012 (Del Trib.). (ix) ITO (OSD) vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., 166 ITD 631 (Del Trib.). (x) H.I. Tamboli & Co. vs. ACIT, Satara – [2017] 87 taxmann.com 155 (Pune…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3612/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…:- (i) BDA Ltd. vs. ITO, 281 ITR 89 (Bom.). (ii) CIT vs. Dabur India Ltd., 283 ITR 197 (Del.). (iii) Dr. Willmar Sochwade India (P) Ltd., ITA NO.160/2006 (Del. HC). (iv) CIT vs. Reebok India Co., 306 ITR 124 (Del.). (v) CIT vs. Glenmark Pharamceuticals Ltd., 324 ITR 199 (Bom.). (vi) DCIT vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (ITA 3703/D/05). (vii) Whirpool India Limited vs. JCIT, 109 TTJ 994 (Del.). (viii) Hero MotoCorp Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.1980/Del/2012 (Del Trib.). (ix) ITO (OSD) vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., 166 ITD 631 (Del Trib.). (x) H.I. Tamboli & Co. vs. ACIT, Satara – [2017] 87 taxmann.com 155 (Pune…

M/S Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1281/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…nd services. Assessee had also referred the Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs ABG Heavy Industries Limited (322 ITR 323). Assessee had also referred the case of Om Metals Infraprojects vs CIT (ITAT Jaipur), CIT vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (324 ITR 199), Lakshmi Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT, range II, Kolhapur, ITAT Pune Bench, ACIT vs Bharat Udyog Limited (2008) 24 SOT 412 and KMC Construction Limited vs CIT (ITAT Hyderabad).” 6.The ld AO observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act only in respect of B.T.Road Project only because it is given on contract to…

The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Sri. Prabhulingeshwar Sugars

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/100070/2016HC Karnataka20 Nov 2017

Bench: S.SUJATHA,H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 260ASection 40

…refore it has to be applied retrospectively. Thus, the learned counsel inviting the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited reported in (2010) 324 ITR 199, pointed out that for the purpose of Section 194C, ‘work’ will not include manufacture or supply of products according to specification of customer by using material purchased from third person. In such cases, there is no liability to deduct tax at source and as such, provisions of Section 194C of the Act are not applicable. The Trib…

Girija Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 35 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 283/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhsmt. Girija Singh Ito-35(1)-4, 303, Ebony, Tower No.1, C-12, Bandra The Orchard Residency, 146, Mumbai. Vs. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086 Pan: Abgps5477E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54

…e order of authorities below and would argue that amendment made in section 54 for substitution of word “a” by “One” is clarificatory in nature and thus retrospective in nature as per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (324 ITR 199). The ld. DR for the Revenue further argued that decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s V.R. Karpagam (supra) is different on facts. In the said case, the assessee received the Smt. Girija Singh property in lieu of portion of surrender of development right and the ration of the decision is not applicable on the facts of the present case…