CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

…above said decisions, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order on both these issues.” 7.2. There being no change in fact and position of law, as noted above and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Microlabs Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 490 (Kar) and the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Wockhardt Ltd. in ITA no. 71/Mum/2007 has already been considered by ld. CIT(A) also, we find no reason to interfere with the findings so arrived at. Accordingly, ground no.7 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. Ground nos. 8 and 9 are in respect of apportionment of R&D expenses to unit…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

…above said decisions, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order on both these issues.” 7.2. There being no change in fact and position of law, as noted above and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Microlabs Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 490 (Kar) and the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Wockhardt Ltd. in ITA no. 71/Mum/2007 has already been considered by ld. CIT(A) also, we find no reason to interfere with the findings so arrived at. Accordingly, ground no.7 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. Ground nos. 8 and 9 are in respect of apportionment of R&D expenses to unit…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2011-12

…that the profit element out of the contract services is offered and subjected to tax. A co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ACIT vs Wockhardt Ltd. (ITA No. 71/Mum/2007) placing reliance on the decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT vs Microlabs Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 490 (Karn) has found that it is only the expenditure which has been incurred which is relevant in computing the weighted deduction and not the net expenditure after reducing any income earned. A co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2012-13 & 2014-15 as referred above has also taken a similar view. We are bound…

CHIMANLAL MANEKLAL SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…nds were more than the investment in the tax free securities. 5.1 The courts have consistently held in above stated situation, no disallowance could be made in terms of Rule 8D(ii).The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Microlabs Ltd., [2016] 383 ITR 490 (Karn) summed up the law on the issue after noticing the availability of own funds as per Balance Sheet of the assessee and after digesting all decisions on the subject, the Court noticed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & P a g e | 6 ITA No. 125, 126/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 Chimanlal Maneklal Securitie…

CHIMANLAL MANEKLAL SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…nds were more than the investment in the tax free securities. 5.1 The courts have consistently held in above stated situation, no disallowance could be made in terms of Rule 8D(ii).The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Microlabs Ltd., [2016] 383 ITR 490 (Karn) summed up the law on the issue after noticing the availability of own funds as per Balance Sheet of the assessee and after digesting all decisions on the subject, the Court noticed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & P a g e | 6 ITA No. 125, 126/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 Chimanlal Maneklal Securitie…

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. JINDAL DRUGS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result,appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. M/S Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax बनाम 12Th Floor, 3(2)(1),Aayakarbhawan, Bakhtawarramnathgoenka Room No. 608 Mumbai – Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400020, Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1000A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी M/S Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., V/S. Assistant Commissioner 12Th Floor, बनाम Of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Bakhtawarramnathgoenka Marg, Aayakarbhawan, Room No. 229Nariman Point Mumbai - 400 608 Mumbai – 400 020, 021, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1000A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

…visaged u/s 14Ar.w. rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. Consequently, the interest expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) under any circumstances. 6.1 The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Microlabs Ltd., [2016] 383 ITR 490 (Karn) summed up the law on the issue after noticing the availability of own funds as per Balance Sheet of the assessee and after digesting all decisions on the subject, the Court noticed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 (Bom), which was later confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

…h situation section 14A of the Act would not be applicable. Similar views have been expressed by other High Courts in CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 157/215 Taxman 272/354 ITR 630 (Guj.), CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 365/[2016] 383 ITR 490 ` (Kar.) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2016] 75 taxmann.com 268/388 ITR 81 (Punj. & Har.). Mr. S Ganesh the learned Senior Counsel while citing these cases from the High Courts have further pointed out that those judgments have attained finality. On reading of these judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the High Courts have correctly int…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…tuation section 14A of the Act would not be applicable. Similar views have been expressed by other High Courts in CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 157/215 Taxman 272/354 ITR 630 (Guj.), CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 365/[2016] 383 ITR 490 Page | 39 (Kar.) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2016] 75 taxmann.com 268/388 ITR 81 (Punj. & Har.). Mr. S Ganesh the learned Senior Counsel while citing these cases from the High Courts have further pointed out that those judgments have attained finality. On reading of these judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the High Courts have…