CIT v. Pfizer Ltd.

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

…ortunity of being heard. 9. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, the Id AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Pfizer Ltd. [1991] 191 ITR 626 and also of City bank NA v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 6 of 2001] as well as the decision of CIT v. K.E.C International [IT Appeal No. 1038 of 2000). Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, in our considered view, the assessee is justified in seeking interest u/s 244A of the Act upto the date of receipt of the refund order, ie. 18-8-2022. Accord…

PURANMAL DELHIWALA,WADALA, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

…duced as under:\n\"9. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, the ld AR\nsubmitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide the decisions of\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Limited [1991] 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and\nalso of City bank NA Mumbai Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 as well as the decision of CIT vs.\nK.E.C International in ITA No. 1038 of 2000. Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents,\nin our considered view, the assessee is justified in seeking interest u/s 244A of the Act upto the\ndate of receipt of the refund order, i.e. 18.08.2…

P.K JAIN FAMILY HOLDING TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 31(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated here in above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

…vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2362/Mum/2023 for assessment year 1993-94 vide order dated 6/12/2023. The Ld.AR submitted that the this coordinate bench of this Tribunal relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd. reported in (1991) 191 ITR 626. 8 ITA No.671/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 P K Jain Family Holding Trust 6.4 On the contrary the Ld.DR placed reliance on the orders passed by the below. We have perused the submissions by both sides in the light of record placed before us. 7. It is noted that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Pfizer Ltd. (sup…

DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

…the Ld A.R submitted that the same is also not required to be reduced, since it is also arising from the exercise of same business only. He also placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd (2011)(330 ITR 62)(Bom). 14.2 We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. With regard to “Income from Royalties’, we are unable to accept the contentions of the Ld A.R. In our view, the income from royalties is received on licensing some rights to a third party and the same is not connected with the business or business of exports carried on by the assessee. The decis…

DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

…the Ld A.R submitted that the same is also not required to be reduced, since it is also arising from the exercise of same business only. He also placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd (2011)(330 ITR 62)(Bom). 14.2 We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. With regard to “Income from Royalties’, we are unable to accept the contentions of the Ld A.R. In our view, the income from royalties is received on licensing some rights to a third party and the same is not connected with the business or business of exports carried on by the assessee. The decis…

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

…the Ld A.R submitted that the same is also not required to be reduced, since it is also arising from the exercise of same business only. He also placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd (2011)(330 ITR 62)(Bom). 14.2 We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. With regard to “Income from Royalties’, we are unable to accept the contentions of the Ld A.R. In our view, the income from royalties is received on licensing some rights to a third party and the same is not connected with the business or business of exports carried on by the assessee. The decis…

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

…the Ld A.R submitted that the same is also not required to be reduced, since it is also arising from the exercise of same business only. He also placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd (2011)(330 ITR 62)(Bom). 14.2 We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. With regard to “Income from Royalties’, we are unable to accept the contentions of the Ld A.R. In our view, the income from royalties is received on licensing some rights to a third party and the same is not connected with the business or business of exports carried on by the assessee. The decis…

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross\nobjections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

…Ld A.R submitted\nthat the same is also not required to be reduced, since it is also arising from\nthe exercise of same business only. He also placed his reliance on the decision\nrendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd\n(2011)(330 ITR 62)(Bom).\n\n14.2 We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. With regard to “Income from\nRoyalties', we are unable to accept the contentions of the Ld A.R. In our view,\nthe income from royalties is received on licensing some rights to a third party\nand the same is not connected with the business or business of exports carried\non by the assessee. The…

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

…the Ld A.R submitted that the same is also not required to be reduced, since it is also arising from the exercise of same business only. He also placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd (2011)(330 ITR 62)(Bom). 14.2 We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. With regard to “Income from Royalties’, we are unable to accept the contentions of the Ld A.R. In our view, the income from royalties is received on licensing some rights to a third party and the same is not connected with the business or business of exports carried on by the assessee. The decis…

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

…ity of being heard. 9. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, the ld AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Limited [1991] 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and also of City bank NA Mumbai Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 as well as the decision of CIT vs. K.E.C International in ITA No. 1038 of 2000. Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, in our considered view, the assessee is justified in seeking interest u/s 244A of the Act upto the date of receipt of the refund order, i.e. 18.08.2022.…

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

…ity of being heard. 9. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, the ld AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Limited [1991] 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and also of City bank NA Mumbai Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 as well as the decision of CIT vs. K.E.C International in ITA No. 1038 of 2000. Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, in our considered view, the assessee is justified in seeking interest u/s 244A of the Act upto the date of receipt of the refund order, i.e. 18.08.2022.…

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary]

…d be read as under: “9. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, the ld AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Limited [1991] 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and also of City bank NA Mumbai Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 as well as the decision of CIT Us. K.E.C International in ITA No. 1038 of 2000. Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, in our considered view, the assessee is justified in seeking interest u/s 244A of the Act upto the date of receipt of the refund order, i.e. 18.08.2022.…

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 2(3)(1), INCOME TAX

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary]

…d be read as under: “9. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, the ld AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Limited [1991] 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and also of City bank NA Mumbai Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 as well as the decision of CIT Us. K.E.C International in ITA No. 1038 of 2000. Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, in our considered view, the assessee is justified in seeking interest u/s 244A of the Act upto the date of receipt of the refund order, i.e. 18.08.2022.…

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary]

…d be read as under: “9. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, the ld AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Limited [1991] 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and also of City bank NA Mumbai Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 as well as the decision of CIT Us. K.E.C International in ITA No. 1038 of 2000. Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, in our considered view, the assessee is justified in seeking interest u/s 244A of the Act upto the date of receipt of the refund order, i.e. 18.08.2022.…

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD 2(3)(1), INCOME TAX

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary]

…d be read as under: “9. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, the ld AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Limited [1991] 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and also of City bank NA Mumbai Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 as well as the decision of CIT Us. K.E.C International in ITA No. 1038 of 2000. Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, in our considered view, the assessee is justified in seeking interest u/s 244A of the Act upto the date of receipt of the refund order, i.e. 18.08.2022.…

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD 2(3)(1), INCOME TAX

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary]

…d be read as under: “9. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, the ld AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee vide the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Limited [1991] 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and also of City bank NA Mumbai Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 as well as the decision of CIT Us. K.E.C International in ITA No. 1038 of 2000. Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents, in our considered view, the assessee is justified in seeking interest u/s 244A of the Act upto the date of receipt of the refund order, i.e. 18.08.2022.…

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

…milar nature‟ as mentioned in explanation (baa) to Sec.80HHC. The stand of the assessee is that these items, being arising out of operational business, would form part of profits of the business. 18.2 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Pfizer Ltd. (2010 233 CTR 521), considering its 45 ITA. No. 2308&2188/Mum/2012 &C.O.76/Mum/2013(A.Y.: 2003-04) Novartis India Limited, Mumbai earlier decision in CIT V/s Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd. (2010 232 CTR (Bom.) 52—Ed.) as well as the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in CIT V/s K.Ravindranathan Nair (2007 165 Taxman 282), held as under: - Re : Question A 3. The assessee…

TH BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – Circle - 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Shri Pratik Shah & Ms. Riddhi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Udoal Raj Singh

…Limited voucher, i.e. 29.3.2010 whereas as per the assessee, it is entitled to interest upto April, 2010 (i.e. upto the date of receipt of refund voucher on 6.4.2010). In this context, we find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Limited, 191 ITR 626 (Bom) has held that assessee is entitled to interest upto the date of receipt of the refund order. Similarly, our coordinate bench in the case of M/s. Novartis India Limited, ITA No. 1249/Mum/2010 dated 18.3.2011 has decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee by referring to an unreported judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the c…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Novartis India Limited v. Asst. Commissioner of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6th& 7th Floor 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire BKC M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, BKC Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AAACH2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner of Income –Tax – 7(1) v. M/s. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known as Hindustan Ciba G…