CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra

284 ITR 679High Court2006#10487 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

annual letting valueannual valuecorporate guaranteemercantile system of accountingbook profitssection 115jassociated enterprisessection 92transfer pricing adjustmentinternational transactiondisallowance under section 14asection 92c

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra

JT. CIT (OSD) - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1349/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1093/मुं/2019 (नि.व. 2012-13)

…t Year 2011-12 (in para 25 onwards). The Co-ordinate Bench after considering decisions rendered in the case of PCIT vs. State Bank of India. 109 taxmann.com11(Bom); CIT vs. Eveready Industries Ltd., 98 taxmann.com 90(Cal) and CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 284 ITR 679 (Bom) concluded as under: “33. In the present case, the net provision for pension of Rs. 21.94 crore was claimed as deduction on the basis that assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. It is not in dispute that such an estimate has been made by the assessee from year to year to provide for the pension amount payable to the Directors…

TATA SONS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-58, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1093/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1093/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaact-4060-A बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Jcit, Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.1349/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Jt.Cit (Osd)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Stree, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaact-4060-A अपीलाथ""ारा/Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah, Advocates. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/03/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji and Ms. Aastha Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: S/Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR and Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.AR

…t Year 2011-12 (in para 25 onwards). The Co-ordinate Bench after considering decisions rendered in the case of PCIT vs. State Bank of India. 109 taxmann.com11(Bom); CIT vs. Eveready Industries Ltd., 98 taxmann.com 90(Cal) and CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 284 ITR 679 (Bom) concluded as under: “33. In the present case, the net provision for pension of Rs. 21.94 crore was claimed as deduction on the basis that assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. It is not in dispute that such an estimate has been made by the assessee from year to 17 ITA NO.1349/MUM/2019(A.Y.2012-13) year to provide for the p…

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Room No. 902, 9th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) v. M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Room No. 902, 9th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) v. M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…by the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers (supra). We find no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion reached by the Tribunal.” 32. We further find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in another decision in CIT vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, [2006] 284 ITR 679 (Bombay), while dealing with the issue of allowability of actuarially quantified liability in respect of special pension, observed as under: “16. Having heard rival parties, the submissions made by Mr. Dastur deserve acceptance. No fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. The judgment in National Insurance Co. of India's case (sup…

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4221/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…by the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers (supra). We find no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion reached by the Tribunal.” 32. We further find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in another decision in CIT vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, [2006] 284 ITR 679 (Bombay), while dealing with the issue of allowability of actuarially quantified liability in respect of special pension, observed as under: “16. Having heard rival parties, the submissions made by Mr. Dastur deserve acceptance. No fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. The judgment in National Insurance Co. of India's case (sup…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…hat the amount should be allowed as business expenditure because it was incurred predominantly for staff welfare. The decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) was further followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra: 284 ITR 679. (iii) In the case of CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.), the Madras High Court observed as under: “The finding of the Tribunal is that by making the contribution to the Panchayat for upgrading the elementary school, the assessee-company was assured by the school management that it would give preference in the matter of admission to…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…hat the amount should be allowed as business expenditure because it was incurred predominantly for staff welfare. The decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) was further followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra: 284 ITR 679. (iii) In the case of CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.), the Madras High Court observed as under: “The finding of the Tribunal is that by making the contribution to the Panchayat for upgrading the elementary school, the assessee-company was assured by the school management that it would give preference in the matter of admission to…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…hat the amount should be allowed as business expenditure because it was incurred predominantly for staff welfare. The decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) was further followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra: 284 ITR 679. (iii) In the case of CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.), the Madras High Court observed as under: “The finding of the Tribunal is that by making the contribution to the Panchayat for upgrading the elementary school, the assessee-company was assured by the school management that it would give preference in the matter of admission to…

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…lfare is allowable business deduction. Expenditure by way of grant to schools/ education funds for employee‘s welfare: (i) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. vs. CIT: 166 ITR 836 (Kar.) (ii) Mahindra and Mahindra vs. CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) (iii)CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra: 284 ITR 679 (Bom) (iv) Krishna SahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd V. CIT: 229 ITR 577 (Bom.) (v) CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.) (vi) Northern Coalfields Ltd v ACIT; 69 SOT 637 (Jabalpur - Trib.) Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (…

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra (284 ITR 679) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax