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 CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-7(2) Vs. M/s Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point MK Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACM2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Smt Shailja Rai.DR Respondent by : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR Date of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order passed by…

Sivanandha Steels Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 518/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra T. Mishra, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 28

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 518/CHNY/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sivanandha Steels Ltd., The DCIT, Plot No.18-20, Ambit Park Road, vs. Corporate Circle 3, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Coimbatore. Chennai – 600 058. PAN: AADCS 0678N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respo…

Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2035/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, C.I.T.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Sr.No. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Year Adani Enterprises Ltd., Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Six Roads, No.2035/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Navrangpura, 1-2. & & Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad. No.941/Ahd/2018 2012-13 Ahmedabad PAN :AABCA2804L Adani Enterprises Ltd., Adani House, Nr. No.2030/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Mithakhali Six Roads, 3-4 & & Circle-1(1)(1), Navrangpura, No.913/Ahd/2018 2012-13 Ahmedabad Ahmeda…

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil B.Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of The ld AO is dismissed

ITA 2239/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaepd3658F Assessee By : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.07.22 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…5. Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who passed appellate order, wherein a. he deleted the addition of Rs. 42,45,000/- under Section 28(iv) of the Act following decision of Honourable Supreme court in CIT V Mahindra & Mahindra Limited [ 404 ITR 1 (SC) . b. With respect to the addition under Section 56(2) (x) of the Act of Rs. 1,81,53,200/-. He upheld the addition of Rs. 30,32,300/- and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,51,20,900/- holding that there is marginal difference of 6 % between transaction value and consideration mentioned in agreement holding that proviso providing tolerance band of…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Crane Software International Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 214/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.V.Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

…d therefore, the same deserves to be deleted. It is prayed accordingly.” 5. The CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra reported in 404 ITR 1 (SC), held that loans borrowed and utilized by the assessee was on the capital front. Thus, it was concluded by the CIT(A) that waiver of principal amount of loan on a one time settlement with the bank would be purely in nature of a capital receipt. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- 6 ITA No.214/Bang/2020. M/s.Crane Software In…

Technichem Oraganics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ITA No.18/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Technichem Organics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, 5th Floor, Malak Building, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad. B/h. Old High Court, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. [PAN – AACCT 2027 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 01.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEM…

Arcpt Textioles Mills Ltd., Villupuram vs. ACIT Villupuram Circle, Villupuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

ITA 772/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.772/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Assistant Commissioner M/S. Arcot Textiles Mills Ltd Of Income Tax, 14 & 15, Salem Main Road, Villupuram Circle, Ulagankathan Village, Villupuram-605 602. Kallakurichi, Villupuram-606 202. Pan:Aabca 3216C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 26.05.2022
Section 115JSection 139(3)Section 234BSection 41Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 72(3)Section 79Section 80

…assessee had also relied upon decision of the ITAT., Pune Bench in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 181/PN/2004 dated 27.06.2012 and also decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, (2018) 404 ITR 1(SC). 10 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the learned CIT(A), submitted that scheme sanctioned by the BIFR has not been approved by the Directorate of Income Tax (Recovery), in terms of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus, the Assessing Officer has very rightly brought to tax cessation of liabilit…

India Cements Capital Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1932/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 263Section 41(1)

…ecoRegent Ltd. (331 ITR 317). In this decision, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that Sec.28(iv) would have no application to any transaction which involves money. Similar ratio has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (404 ITR 1). In this decision, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that waiver of loan by the creditor is neither taxable as perquisite u/s 28(iv) nor taxable as remission / cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the Act. Further, Sec.28(iv) would not apply to waiver of loan since the waiver could not be termed as income u/s 2(24). The cited decision of Hon’ble…

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. Unique Receivable Management Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3081/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 263Section 41(1)

…ecoRegent Ltd. (331 ITR 317). In this decision, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that Sec.28(iv) would have no application to any transaction which involves money. Similar ratio has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (404 ITR 1). In this decision, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that waiver of loan by the creditor is neither taxable as perquisite u/s 28(iv) nor taxable as remission / cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the Act. Further, Sec.28(iv) would not apply to waiver of loan since the waiver could not be termed as income u/s 2(24). The cited decision of Hon’ble…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. India Cements Capital and Finance Ltd., Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1626/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 263Section 41(1)

…ecoRegent Ltd. (331 ITR 317). In this decision, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that Sec.28(iv) would have no application to any transaction which involves money. Similar ratio has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (404 ITR 1). In this decision, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that waiver of loan by the creditor is neither taxable as perquisite u/s 28(iv) nor taxable as remission / cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the Act. Further, Sec.28(iv) would not apply to waiver of loan since the waiver could not be termed as income u/s 2(24). The cited decision of Hon’ble…

Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Dona Paula

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 381/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 40Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ, पणजी म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI (Through virtual Court- at Raipur) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 380/PAN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. PAN : AAACI9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 381/PAN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of In…

Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Dona Paula vs. Joint Comm. of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 380/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 40Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ, पणजी म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI (Through virtual Court- at Raipur) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 380/PAN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. PAN : AAACI9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 381/PAN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of In…

Dy. CIT Cir 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Blue Foods Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6543/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6543/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cr. 6(1)(2), M/S Blue Foods Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 8, Marol Co-Op. बिधम/ Industrial Estate, Near Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marol Bhavan, Marol, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri-East, Maharashtra-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcb4617L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Samir Shah, Ld. Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri C. T. Mathews, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.03.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 02.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Mumbai In Short Referred As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’ Dated 11.06.2019 Pertaining To Ay 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Shri Samir Shah, Ld. AR byFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews, Ld. DR by
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…of M/s PAN Indian Food Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 6. On appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), it was held that Section 28(iv) of the Act will not be attracted to the present case in hand as per the decision by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 404 ITR 1 (93 taxman.com 32) which laid the proposition that to invoke the provision of section 28(iv) of the Act, the benefit received should be in some other form instead of money and hence in the assessee’s case it was by cash or money. The Ld. CIT(A) has also held that in the remand report, the AO though was directed to inquire and specify whether the sa…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A No.6908/Mum/2012 - A.Y. 2001-02 I.T.A No.2117/Mum/2013 - A.Y. 2002-03 Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income- Taxation Department, L&T tax, Range-2(2), Mumbai House N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 001 PAN : AAACL0140P APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A No.6878 /Mum/2012 - A.Y. 2001-02 I.T.A No.2284/Mum/2013 - A.Y. 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner of vs Larsen & Toubro Limited Income-tax, Range-2(2), Taxation Department, L&T House Mumbai N.M. Mar…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Kaptronics Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1864/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Kaptronics Pvt. Ltd., Ward 4(1)(2), No.165/4, C.K. Palya, Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 083. PAN: AABCK 1953C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Date of hearing : 16.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the revenue is against…

M/S I G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 207/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 3.5.2 With respect to the applicability of section 28(vi) of the Act, the assessee has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited reported in 404 ITR 1, wherein it was held that in absence of benefit of perquisite other than in the shape of money, there is no question of bringing the receipt to tax under the said section. The provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is not a case of remission of trading liability, which has been claimed as deduction in…

M/S.L.G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1957/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 3.5.2 With respect to the applicability of section 28(vi) of the Act, the assessee has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited reported in 404 ITR 1, wherein it was held that in absence of benefit of perquisite other than in the shape of money, there is no question of bringing the receipt to tax under the said section. The provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is not a case of remission of trading liability, which has been claimed as deduction in…

M/S.L.G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1956/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 3.5.2 With respect to the applicability of section 28(vi) of the Act, the assessee has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited reported in 404 ITR 1, wherein it was held that in absence of benefit of perquisite other than in the shape of money, there is no question of bringing the receipt to tax under the said section. The provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is not a case of remission of trading liability, which has been claimed as deduction in…

M/S.L.G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1955/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 3.5.2 With respect to the applicability of section 28(vi) of the Act, the assessee has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited reported in 404 ITR 1, wherein it was held that in absence of benefit of perquisite other than in the shape of money, there is no question of bringing the receipt to tax under the said section. The provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is not a case of remission of trading liability, which has been claimed as deduction in…

Jt. CIT (OSD) - 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Supertex Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 926/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 926/मुं/2020(िन.व. 2007-08) Jt. Cit (Osd)-4(3)(2), Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S Supertex Industries Ltd. 45/49, Balkrishna Krupa, Babu Genu Road, Princes Street, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aaacs7274D ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Abhijeet Chaudhary "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Rajesh Shah. सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2021 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/03/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 25.11.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08. The Revenue In Appeal Has Raised Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet ChaudharyFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…assessee supported the impugned order and placed reliance on the findings given in para 4.3 of the impugned order. The ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. reported as 404 ITR 1 and the decision of Tribunal in the case of JCIT Vs. Garware Chemicals Ltd. in ITA No. 1438/Mum/2012 decided on 08.03.2011. 5. We have heard the rival sides and have examined the orders of the authorities below. The solitary issue in present appeal is with respect to the waiver of loan by IDBI Bank Ltd. in the scheme of OTS. It would be relevant to…