CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

404 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2018#601 most cited

What is CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. authority for?

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. · 404 ITR 1 SC · Section 28(iv) · Section 41(1) · waiver of loan · loan for capital assets · capital receipt · business income · trading liability · capital liability · taxability of loan waiver

Also reported as

93 Taxmann.com 3293 Taxmann 32

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 28(iv)Section 41(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 14ASection 40(a)(ia)Section 133ASection 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

waiver of loansection 28(iv)section 14bsection 35abbsection 35ddsection 41(1)section 41section 10(33)section 40a(7)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 43b(b)short deduction of tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3272/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…ITA Nos. 3272/Mum/2015 & 1656/Mum/2014 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.; A.Y. 09-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner of Ltd. Income-tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 nd floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACT1565C The Dy. Commissioner of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP Vs. Esplanade H…

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1656/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…ITA Nos. 3272/Mum/2015 & 1656/Mum/2014 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.; A.Y. 09-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner of Ltd. Income-tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 nd floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACT1565C The Dy. Commissioner of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP Vs. Esplanade H…

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 375/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

…ecause waiver of loan obtained by the assessee which loan is utilized towards capital assets has been held to be non-taxable receipt. The assessee had strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra as reported in 404 ITR 1, a copy of which was filed before us. Assessment Year 2006-07 ITA No. 641/Del/2012 14. In this assessment year, the assessee raised an additional ground vide its application dated 30.03.2021 which was filed on 01.04.2021. Through this ground, the assessee has contended that assessment for A. Y. 2006-07 was required to be framed u/s 153C of the Inc…

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 374/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

…ecause waiver of loan obtained by the assessee which loan is utilized towards capital assets has been held to be non-taxable receipt. The assessee had strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra as reported in 404 ITR 1, a copy of which was filed before us. Assessment Year 2006-07 ITA No. 641/Del/2012 14. In this assessment year, the assessee raised an additional ground vide its application dated 30.03.2021 which was filed on 01.04.2021. Through this ground, the assessee has contended that assessment for A. Y. 2006-07 was required to be framed u/s 153C of the Inc…

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 641/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

…ecause waiver of loan obtained by the assessee which loan is utilized towards capital assets has been held to be non-taxable receipt. The assessee had strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra as reported in 404 ITR 1, a copy of which was filed before us. Assessment Year 2006-07 ITA No. 641/Del/2012 14. In this assessment year, the assessee raised an additional ground vide its application dated 30.03.2021 which was filed on 01.04.2021. Through this ground, the assessee has contended that assessment for A. Y. 2006-07 was required to be framed u/s 153C of the Inc…

Share Microfin Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyerabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 430/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR
Section 143(2)Section 28Section 41(1)

…ITA 430 of 2020 Share Microfin Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) PAN:AAECS9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, CA Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR Date of hearing: 17/04/2023 Date of pronouncement: 12/06/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23003.2020 of the lear…

Birendranath Samanta, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [PAN : AKAPS8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/0…

M/S Germinda Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1379/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. HukughaSema, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d in the return form. 11. On the contention of the assessee as to write back of liabilities being capital in nature and hence not chargeable to income-tax, we looked into the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra [2018] 404 ITR 1 (SC) which dealt with the issue of waiver of loan liability if it represents income under section 28(iv) or alternatively, under section 41(1) of the Act. Hon’ble Court summed up its judgment in Para 17 which is reproduced as under: 10 Germinda Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2010-11 “17. To sum up, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order pass…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Amrut Prasad Patnam, Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1894/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…der. The AO taxed the amount U/s. 28(iv) of the IT Act, 1961. 8. In the assessment order the amount was taxed U/s. 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the appellant contested by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra & Mahendra reported in 404 ITR 1 that the amount was not taxable. g. Further. the appellant submits without prejudice to its claim that the amount represented TDS of Mis. Amsri Builders and not income of the appellant. If the income receipt falls U/s. 28(i) or U/s. 28(iv) of the Act, the appellant is entitled to choose either of the two sections to state that income is not taxable…

P Amruth Prasad, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1707/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…der. The AO taxed the amount U/s. 28(iv) of the IT Act, 1961. 8. In the assessment order the amount was taxed U/s. 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the appellant contested by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra & Mahendra reported in 404 ITR 1 that the amount was not taxable. g. Further. the appellant submits without prejudice to its claim that the amount represented TDS of Mis. Amsri Builders and not income of the appellant. If the income receipt falls U/s. 28(i) or U/s. 28(iv) of the Act, the appellant is entitled to choose either of the two sections to state that income is not taxable…

P Amrutha Prasad, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1706/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…der. The AO taxed the amount U/s. 28(iv) of the IT Act, 1961. 8. In the assessment order the amount was taxed U/s. 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the appellant contested by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra & Mahendra reported in 404 ITR 1 that the amount was not taxable. g. Further. the appellant submits without prejudice to its claim that the amount represented TDS of Mis. Amsri Builders and not income of the appellant. If the income receipt falls U/s. 28(i) or U/s. 28(iv) of the Act, the appellant is entitled to choose either of the two sections to state that income is not taxable…

Srinivas Uppu, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1705/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…der. The AO taxed the amount U/s. 28(iv) of the IT Act, 1961. 8. In the assessment order the amount was taxed U/s. 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the appellant contested by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra & Mahendra reported in 404 ITR 1 that the amount was not taxable. g. Further. the appellant submits without prejudice to its claim that the amount represented TDS of Mis. Amsri Builders and not income of the appellant. If the income receipt falls U/s. 28(i) or U/s. 28(iv) of the Act, the appellant is entitled to choose either of the two sections to state that income is not taxable…

Srinivas Uppu, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1704/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…der. The AO taxed the amount U/s. 28(iv) of the IT Act, 1961. 8. In the assessment order the amount was taxed U/s. 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the appellant contested by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra & Mahendra reported in 404 ITR 1 that the amount was not taxable. g. Further. the appellant submits without prejudice to its claim that the amount represented TDS of Mis. Amsri Builders and not income of the appellant. If the income receipt falls U/s. 28(i) or U/s. 28(iv) of the Act, the appellant is entitled to choose either of the two sections to state that income is not taxable…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers India Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1256/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1256/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2014-15 The Dcit, Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers Corporate Circle 1(1), V. India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. New No.45 (Old No.45) No.3, 3Rd Floor, Manjula Towers, Ceebros Complex, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aafca 0623B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…t give rise to income and, hence, not liable to transfer pricing adjustment.” 6.1 The ld.counsel for the assessee also made argument that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 1 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that waiver of loan by creditor is neither taxable as a perquisite u/s.28(iv) of the Act nor taxable as I.T.A. No.1256/Chny/2019 9 a cessation of liability u/s.41(1) of the Act. The ld.counsel for the assessee particularly referred to para 16 & 17 of the judgment which reads as under:- 16. Moreover, the purch…

DCIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ramani Exports, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 609/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.609 & 608/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-19 (3). M/S. Ramani Exports. Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 6/B, Shreeji Darshan, Tata बिधम/ Room No. 206, Grant Road, No. 01 & 02, Opera Road. Mumbai-400 006 House. Mumbai-400 004 Vs.

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 21Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

…essee to have buffer amount in case of any exigencies and such amount can be used for anything and not only for the purpose of purchasing of sailing goods. He further held that, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., reported in 2018 93 Taxmann 32, clearly clinches the issue in the favour of the assessee and also quoted the relevant paragraphs of the said judgement. He also referred to the decision of PCIT Vs. M/s. Gujarat State Financial Corporation SLP No. 272/221 order dated 19 Feb, 2021 and held that, addition cannot made u/s. 41(1)(a) for u/s. 21 of the Act. He has also quoted vario…

DCIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ramani Exports, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 608/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.609 & 608/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-19 (3). M/S. Ramani Exports. Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 6/B, Shreeji Darshan, Tata बिधम/ Room No. 206, Grant Road, No. 01 & 02, Opera Road. Mumbai-400 006 House. Mumbai-400 004 Vs.

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 21Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

…essee to have buffer amount in case of any exigencies and such amount can be used for anything and not only for the purpose of purchasing of sailing goods. He further held that, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., reported in 2018 93 Taxmann 32, clearly clinches the issue in the favour of the assessee and also quoted the relevant paragraphs of the said judgement. He also referred to the decision of PCIT Vs. M/s. Gujarat State Financial Corporation SLP No. 272/221 order dated 19 Feb, 2021 and held that, addition cannot made u/s. 41(1)(a) for u/s. 21 of the Act. He has also quoted vario…

M/S. Ltimindtree Limited (Successor in Interest to M/S. Mindtree Limited), Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 27/BANG/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Ganesh.R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

…hout prejudice to the above, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that waiver of any amount payable would amount to receipt of cash which therefore does not fall under section 28(iv) as held in CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 1 (SC). 5. Without prejudice to the above, Lower Authorities having disallowed depreciation and made addition in respect of liability written off ought to have computed the deduction 10A of the IT Act by taking revised profits. For the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which may be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged at the time of…

Marvelore Mining & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Cir.-1(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 10/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Court Hearing) Marvelore Mining & Allied Vs The Ito, Circle-1(1)(2), Industreis Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 251, Shree Ambica, Besides Yash Plaza, Varachha Road, Surat- 395006. Pan : Aafcm4849R Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(1)Section 41(1)

…A No. 10/SRT/2022/AY.2016-17 Marvelore Minning & Allied Industreis Pvt. Ltd. The assessee also relied where the case laws of various High Courts. The assessee specifically relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Mahendra & Mahendra, 404 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that it is a sine qua non that there should be an allowance for deduction claimed by assessee in any assessment for any year in respect of loss on expenditure or trading liability incurred by assessee. Then subsequently during any previous year, the creditor remits or revenue any such liability, then assessee’s liability ta…

ACIT Cent. Cir5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Infinite Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2241/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19
Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(x)

…ore, would not be in nature of any benefit or perquisite as construed in section 28(M) of the Act. b) The decision of Bombay High Court in Mahindra and Mahindra, supra, has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as hereunder "13) On a plain reading of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act, prima facie, a appears that for the applicability of the said provision, the income which can be taxed shall arise from the business or profession. Also, in order to invoke the provision of Section 28 (iv) of the I…

Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 16(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5296/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, B-49, Connught Place, Ward 16(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm0006B

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pushpanjali Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, B-49, Connught Place, Ward 16(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACM0006B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Alok Mathur, CA Revenue by : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2022 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.04.2019 of the CIT(A)-7, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Y…