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.

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 6693/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 28Section 37

…ERs as ‘benefits’ or ‘perquisites’ under the provisions of section 28(iv) read with section 2(24)(vd) of the Act is completely misplaced and untenable. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2018] 302 CTR 213 on this aspect of the issue. 4.0 The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of AO and the Ld. CIT(A) on all the issues and submitted that casemay be decided on the merits of the case. 5.0 We have carefully considered the rival contentions and have perused the orders of the lower authorities and judgments relied upon by the reven…

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

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

ITA 1317/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(vd)Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

…us from trade so as to tax it. Being so, with regard to the principal term loan portion, it is a capital receipt only and waiver of the same is not taxable. We place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 404 ITR 1 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:- “Held, dismissing the appeals, (i) that prima facie, for the applicability of section 28(iv) of the Act, , the income must arise from the business or profession. And the benefit which is received has to be in some other form rather than in the shape of money. The amount of Rs.57,74,064 was a cash recei…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -I, Kolkata vs. Viper Estates & Investment (P) Ltd

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

ITA/67/2012HC Calcutta18 Jan 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S.Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : January 18, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Advocate …For Appellant Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Advocate Mr. Avra Mazumder, Advocate …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No. 890/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Appeal Was Admitted On 15Th June, 2012 To Decide The Following Substantial Question Of Law:-

Section 260ASection 263Section 28

…bstantial question of law, which has been raised and admitted to be decided in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 1 (SC). This decision was referred in the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax (LTU) v. Areva T & D India Ltd.[2021] 434 ITR 604 (Mad). The operative portion of the judgement read as follows:- “18. Substantial question of law Nos.3 and 4 are connected as the question is as to whether the net book value of the entity taken over by the assessee over a…

ACIT, Haryana vs. M/S. S.K. Foils Ltd., Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in

ITA 3504/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit S. K. Foils Ltd. Circle Bhiwani Vs 17, Industrial Area Haryana Bhiwani Pan No. Aabcs8183Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 28Section 41(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT S. K. Foils Ltd. Circle Bhiwani Vs 17, Industrial Area Haryana Bhiwani PAN No. AABCS8183Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Vinod Jain, CA Date of hearing: 16/12/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 13/01/2022 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Hisar dated 31.03.2017 pertaining to A.Y.2011-12. 2. The grievance of the revenue rea…

ACIT, Circle - 16 (1), Mumbai vs. Bbc Worldwide Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit -16(1), Vs. M/S. Bbc World Wide Room No. 439, 4Th Media Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai – Construction House A, 400 020. Off Linking Road, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052 Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2307F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.C T Mathew. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Siddhesh Chougle. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DCIT -16(1), Vs. M/s. BBC World Wide Room No. 439, 4th Media Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 4th Floor, MK Road, Mumbai – construction House A, 400 020. Off linking Road, 24th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052 PAN/GIR No. : AADCB2307F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri.C T Mathew. DR Respondent by : Shri.Siddhesh Chougle. AR Date of Hearing 10.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 07.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed th…

Shri Sunil Bandacharya Joshi, Bangaloe vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2304/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Preethi Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ananda H., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)

…that the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act would not apply when the sum of Rs.60 lakh was a capital receipt. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited reported in 404 ITR 1 (SC) and order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Peethadhipati Trust in ITA No.1382 and 1535/Bang/2010 (order dated 03.01.2012). 6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole reason f…

Tripura Bio-Tech Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1428/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Years: 2007-08 Tripura Bio-Tech Ltd., ` Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabct 9875A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2007-08 Tripura Bio-tech Ltd., ` Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward – 2(2), Hyderabad. PAN – AABCT 9875A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date of hearing: 15/12/2021 Date of pronouncement: 22/12/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - 1 Guntur’s order dated 09/08/2019 for AY 2007- 0…

Tmi Rollon Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 460/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Rollon Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Formerly Tmi Rollon Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd.,) Circle – 7(1)(1), #271, 8Th Cross, 4Thphase, Bengaluru. Peenya Industrial Layout, Bengaluru– 560 058. Pan : Aaacr 8618 N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. H. V. Gowtham, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru

For Appellant: Shri. H. V. Gowtham, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 41(1)

…d only when the sum in question is allowed as a deduction to an assessee in any previous year. If the liability is on account of capital account, this condition may not be satisfied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., 404 ITR 1 (SC) held that waiver of loan for acquiring capital asset does not amount to cessation of trading liability and therefore the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act are not attracted. In our opinion, in the light of the documents filed by the assessee before us, viz., the loan agreement dated 19.05.2008, approval of the RBI dated 03.06.2008 and fin…

Greatship (India ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 7151/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7151/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Greatship (India) Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बिाम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Esplande House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-8542-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Assails Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2017 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-I, Mumbai U/S 144C(5) Dated 28/09/2017. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 28Section 92BSection 92C

…Hon‟ble High Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. V/s CIT (261 ITR 501), the provisions of Sec. 28(iv) are not applicable to a benefit that arose in cash or monetary terms. This decision has been upheld by Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 24/04/2018 which is reported at 404 ITR 1. In the present case, the benefit received by the assessee upon repayment of loan is in the form of cash and therefore, the provisions as invoked by Ld. AO do not have any applicability to the facts of the case. 8.7 Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of settled legal position, we would hold that foreign exchange…

Shri. Satyanarayan Nangalia, Mumbai vs. ITO 17 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7364/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr.Shankarlal Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Vijay Kumar Menon, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri SatyanarayanNangalia, Income Tax Officer - 402, Stock Exchange Towers, Dalal 17(3)(2), Street, Fort, Mumbai-400023. 1st floor, KautilyaBhavan, Vs. BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAAPN 5524 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr.Shankarlal Jain, AR Revenue by : Mr. Vijay Kumar Menon, DR : Date of Hearing 08/07/2021 : Date of pronouncement 30/07/2021 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, J.M. The assessee has filed the appeal against…

ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Echon Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.201/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) Vs. Echon Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. D-93, Aakash Flats Opp: Premchand Nagar Nr.Judges Bungalows Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaace 7427 J

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘B’ [Through Virtual Court] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.201/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ITO, Ward-2(1)(1) Vs. Echon Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. D-93, Aakash Flats Opp: Premchand Nagar Nr.Judges Bungalows Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. PAN : AAACE 7427 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR Shri R. Makwana, Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hea…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of

ITA 4774/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs St Micro Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-8, 202-206,Tolstoy House, 15, New Delhi. Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacs3406M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ce or deduction was claimed in the earlier years in respect of such expenditure as envisaged under section 41(1) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 404 ITR 1(SC). Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Pvt.Ltd. 314 ITR 314 (SC) to buttress the contention that “depreciation is neither a loss, nor an expenditure, nor a trading liability, referred to in section 41(1).” He contended that applying the ratio laid down…

M/S I G Petrochemicals Ltd vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/219/2011HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 263

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.219 OF 2011 BETWEEN: M/S. I.G. PETROCHEMICALS LTD, D-4, JYOTHI COMPLEX 134/1, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI. MADAN MOHAN DHANUKA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O SRI. HANUMAN PRASAD DHANUKA. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT.JINITHA CHATTERJEE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE-560001.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/91/2015HC Karnataka26 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 41(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.91 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. LTD., 7TH FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE PAN:AABCK7281 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.) - - - THIS…

M/S. Archana Traders Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 408/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavansh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 28Section 51

…Homes Pvt. Ltd. (supra), yet it is pertinent to note that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) has since been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is no more a good law. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that though the assessee had received the loan from Naveen P. Patil in the financial year 2006-07, the same was converted into an advance money received b…

Owens-Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Owens Corning (India)Ltd.), Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(1)

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

ITA 402/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 402/Mum/2014 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2003-04) Owens-Corning (India) Pvt. The Income-Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 7(1)(1) 7 Th फनाभ/ Alpha Building, Floor, Mumbai-400 076 Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400 076 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaaco1739M अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Alok Singh, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir MistryFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ एविं श्री एभ. फारगणेश, रेखा सदस्म के सभऺ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM आमकय अऩीर सिं./ ITA No. 402/Mum/2014 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2003-04) Owens-Corning (India) Pvt. The Income-Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 7(1)(1) 7 th फनाभ/ Alpha Building, floor, Mumbai-400 076 Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400 076 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./PAN No. AAACO1739M अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant by : Shri Jehangir Mistry प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Res…

Encorp E-Service Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1883/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…ssessee (Para 27).‖ 15 7. The only argument of the learned authorised representative is that the issue squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Commissioner versus Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd (2018) (404 ITR 1 (SC) and therefore the issue may be set- aside to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to consider the claim of the assessee in view of this decision. The learned departmental representative did not have any objection to this aspect if the matter may be examined once again in the light of the decision of the honourable Supreme…

Encorp E-Service Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1882/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…ssessee (Para 27).‖ 15 7. The only argument of the learned authorised representative is that the issue squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Commissioner versus Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd (2018) (404 ITR 1 (SC) and therefore the issue may be set- aside to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to consider the claim of the assessee in view of this decision. The learned departmental representative did not have any objection to this aspect if the matter may be examined once again in the light of the decision of the honourable Supreme…

Bharti Airtel Ltd (Formerly Bharti Broadband Ltd), New Delhi vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3899/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 148Section 16Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

…pital receipt and cannot be taxed u/s 28(iv) of the Act as mentioned above, This view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra [supra], which decision has subsequently been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 93 Taxmann.com 32. The relevant part of the decision reads as under: “Waiver of loan for acquiring capital asset cannot be taxed as perquisite u/s 28(iv) of the Act as receipt in the hands of the debtor/assessee or in the form of cash/money and it also cannot be taxed as remission of liability u/s 41(1) of the Act as waiver of loan does not amount to cessat…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 2288/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

…e the Tribunal. 37. The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issue of addition on account of buyback on FCCBs at discount is covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions:- • CIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1(SC) • Dy. CIT vs Pidilite Industries Ltd. (2019) 177 ITD 472(Mum.) • OK Play India Ltd. vs JCIT (ITA No.3402/D/2016 dated 13.01.2020) • ACIT vs M/s KEI Industries Ltd. (ITA No.1433/Del/2014 dated 03.12.2020) 38. He submitted that FCCB means a bond issued by an Indian company expressed in foreign currency. The principal and interest in respect of s…