CIT v. Pfizer Ltd.

330 ITR 62High Court2011#1466 most cited

What is CIT v. Pfizer Ltd. authority for?

An insurance claim received on stock in trade constitutes business income and is not an independent source of income.

78

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Pfizer Ltd. · 330 ITR 62 · 233 CTR 521 · insurance claim · stock in trade · business income · Section 80HHC · Section 244A · interest on refund · income from royalties · independent source

Also reported as

233 CTR 521

Sections most often in play

Section 244ASection 234CSection 244A(1A)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 41(3)Section 80HHCSection 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 244a(1)section 90(3)section 35ddasection 43b(a)section 244interest on refundinterest on interestsection 244asection 80hhcopening wdvsection 80hsection 140a

Judgments citing CIT v. Pfizer Ltd.

The 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

ITA 1760/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – 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 Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi

Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Boston Consulting Group (India) v. DCIT – 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 Department Represented by : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi Date o Conclusion of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the as…

Tata Sons Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2362/MUM/2023[1993-1994]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2023AY 1993-1994

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl.CIT)
Section 140A(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 251

…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.…

J B Advani and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2544/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.B Advani & Company Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,Ador House, 4Th Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, 6 K, Dubashmarg, Mumbai-400021. Kalghoda,Liongate,Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj1966D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Paras Savla & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri.G.J.Ninawe.Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 244ASection 32Section 32(2)Section 70Section 71(2)

…ab & Haryana) 7. Suresh Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 27 taxmann.com 203 (Mum). 8. DCIT v. J.BEnggWorks [2017] 82 taxmann.com 326 (Mumbai - Trib). 9. Sunshield Chemicals (P.) Vs. ITO [2015] 64 taxmann.com 161 (Mumbai - Trib). 10 Pfizer Ltd v. CIT [1991]191 ITR 626 (Bombay) 11. Tata Communications Payment Solutions Ltd v. DCIT ITA No. 107/Mum/2022, order dated 23.05.2022 12. Small Industries Development Bank of India v. DCIT, ITA NO. 3707/MUM/2012, order dated 15.09.2017 13. Koninklijke Philips N.V. Vs. DCIT, [2023] 146 taxmann.com 213 (Kolkata Trib.) 6. Recently, The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the c…

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…recovered arises directly from business and consequently, both items form part of operational income not liable to be reduced from profits of business and reliance, in this connection, is placed on decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT V. Pfizer India [330 ITR 62]. Further, he submitted that 90% of Sale of scrap Rs. 19,48,232/- is to be reduced under Explanation (baa) from profits of business which controversy is adjudicated in favour Page No.| 48 ITA.NO.1606 & 1302/MUM/2007 (A.Y: 2003-04) ITA.NO.1128/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2003-04) ITA.NO. 5939 & 6548/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2004-05) ITA.NO. 6745/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2004-05)…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…recovered arises directly from business and consequently, both items form part of operational income not liable to be reduced from profits of business and reliance, in this connection, is placed on decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT V. Pfizer India [330 ITR 62]. Further, he submitted that 90% of Sale of scrap Rs. 19,48,232/- is to be reduced under Explanation (baa) from profits of business which controversy is adjudicated in favour Page No.| 48 ITA.NO.1606 & 1302/MUM/2007 (A.Y: 2003-04) ITA.NO.1128/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2003-04) ITA.NO. 5939 & 6548/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2004-05) ITA.NO. 6745/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2004-05)…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1813/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Small Industries Dcit, Development Bank Of India Circle 3(3)(1) Sme Development Centre, Office Of The Dy. Commissioner C-11, G Block, Of Income Tax-Circle 3(3)(1), Vs. Room No.609, Aayakar Bhavan, Bundra Kurla Complex, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcs3480N

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Raj Singh Meel, SR DR
Section 154Section 244A

…ing or refusing the claim of the assessee and therefore, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) seeking the above relief. The learned CIT (A) after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd in 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Novartis India Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1249/Mum/2010 dated 18th March, 2011 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CITI bank Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 dated 17th July, 2003 held that assessee is entitled for interest up to the date when the Pay Order is actu…

DCIT Cir. 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4337/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…ded from business profit while calculating deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. Further, in respect of insurance claim and recovery, the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Pfizer Ltd, [2011] 320 ITR 62 (Bom.), wherein the Hon‘ble jurisdictional High Court held that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and the indemnification stand on the same footing as the income that would have been realised by the assessee of the sale of the stock in trade. Accordingly, the Hon‘ble Court held that the insurance claim on account of the stock in tra…

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3439/MUM/2005[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

…ded from business profit while calculating deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. Further, in respect of insurance claim and recovery, the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Pfizer Ltd, [2011] 320 ITR 62 (Bom.), wherein the Hon‘ble jurisdictional High Court held that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and the indemnification stand on the same footing as the income that would have been realised by the assessee of the sale of the stock in trade. Accordingly, the Hon‘ble Court held that the insurance claim on account of the stock in tra…

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…80HHC of the Act. Further, in respect of insurance claim and recovery, the assessee has placed reliance upon the Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Pfizer Ltd, [2011] 320 ITR 62 (Bom.), wherein the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court held that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and the indemnification stand on the same footing as the income that would have been realised by the assessee of the sale of the stock in trade. Accordingly, the Hon‟ble Court held that the insurance claim on account of the stock in tra…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…80HHC of the Act. Further, in respect of insurance claim and recovery, the assessee has placed reliance upon the Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Pfizer Ltd, [2011] 320 ITR 62 (Bom.), wherein the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court held that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and the indemnification stand on the same footing as the income that would have been realised by the assessee of the sale of the stock in trade. Accordingly, the Hon‟ble Court held that the insurance claim on account of the stock in tra…

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2908/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 80HSection 92Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 94(7)

…ge, commission, interest, rent or charges and inclusion of that income to the profits of the business, results in distortion, then, such income should be excluded. • Attention is also invited to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd (330 ITR 62). In this decision, in the context of Section 80HHC of the Act. the High Court (in Para 9) observed that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent or charges have been held, by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravindranathan Nair case (213 CTR 227) to constitute independent incomes. The Court further observed that being independ…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 441/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 195Section 244ASection 250Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.437 to 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2012-13 M/s. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner of C/o Deloitte Touché Income Tax (IT), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block EP & GP, 1st floor, Sector V, Salt lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (PAN: AACCK0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA Respondent by…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 440/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 195Section 244ASection 250Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.437 to 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2012-13 M/s. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner of C/o Deloitte Touché Income Tax (IT), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block EP & GP, 1st floor, Sector V, Salt lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (PAN: AACCK0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA Respondent by…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 439/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 195Section 244ASection 250Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.437 to 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2012-13 M/s. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner of C/o Deloitte Touché Income Tax (IT), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block EP & GP, 1st floor, Sector V, Salt lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (PAN: AACCK0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA Respondent by…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 438/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 195Section 244ASection 250Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.437 to 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2012-13 M/s. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner of C/o Deloitte Touché Income Tax (IT), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block EP & GP, 1st floor, Sector V, Salt lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (PAN: AACCK0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA Respondent by…

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 437/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 195Section 244ASection 250Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.437 to 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2012-13 M/s. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner of C/o Deloitte Touché Income Tax (IT), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block EP & GP, 1st floor, Sector V, Salt lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (PAN: AACCK0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Ketan Ved, CA Respondent by…

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8642/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 140ASection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 80H

…e IT No. 06 of 2001 dated 17.07.2003 held that interest u/s 244A of the Act should be granted up to the date of refund order and not up to the date of receipt of the refund order. (vi) The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 626 (Bom) held that assessee was entitled to interest u/s 214 for each of assessment year under consideration up to date of receipt of refund order. (vii) The ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. DCIT Vs. vide ITA No. 1646/Mum/2017 after following the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Union of India Vs. ACIT as supra held that…

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8641/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 140ASection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 244A(1)(b)Section 80H

…e IT No. 06 of 2001 dated 17.07.2003 held that interest u/s 244A of the Act should be granted up to the date of refund order and not up to the date of receipt of the refund order. (vi) The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 626 (Bom) held that assessee was entitled to interest u/s 214 for each of assessment year under consideration up to date of receipt of refund order. (vii) The ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. DCIT Vs. vide ITA No. 1646/Mum/2017 after following the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Union of India Vs. ACIT as supra held that…

State Bank of India Financial Reporting & Taxation Dept., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 807/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 244ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.807/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) State Bank of India Financial Reporting & Taxation Department 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Rd. ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACS8577K v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved Revenue by : Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR Date of Hearing – 10.03.2022 Date of Order – 26/05/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KA…

Tata Communications Payment Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3) (1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 107/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Tata Communications Payment The Dcit, Solutions Ltd. Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No.C21 & C36, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb3924G Assessee By : Shri Heman Desai & Shri Kaikobad Damania, Ars’ Revenue By : Shri Amol Kirtane, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Heman Desai &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250Section 32(2)Section 72

…Officer is silent on that. On the issue of grant of refund till the date of issue of refund, it was 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. It is further stated that in assessee’s own case for AY 1999-2000 in ITA No. 7096/Mum/2016, the co-ordinate Bench has dealt with this issue in Paragraph no. 8, in favour of the assessee. 05. The learn…