CIT v. Pfizer Ltd.

Sabre Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT International Tax Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1 Paya Lebar Link, #05-05 Plq2, International Tax Circle 4(2)(1) Paya Lebar Quarter, Paya Lebar 17Th Floor, Air India Building Road, Singapore 408 533 Nariman Point Mumbai C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Center Tower 3, 30Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai- 400 013, India Pan : Aabca6590M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate Respondent By Shri Milind Chavan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am)

…nder section 244 of the Act. Before us, he submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in R.A. No. 1199/ Bom/1998 dated 17/07/2003 following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in 10 Sabre Asia Pacific pte Limited A Y 2017-18 case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd 191 ITR 626 (Bom) held that the interest under section 244A should be allowed to the assessee till the date of grant of the refund. He submitted that the refund could be granted only when the cheque is issued in favour of the assessee. He submitted a detailed chart of the various issues involved in the appeal along with several decisions of the co-ordinate b…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

…ipts like recovery of freight insurance, packing charges, sales tax refund and service income will not be part of business profit and has to be considered for reduction as per Explanation (baa). Subsequently, however Hon'ble High Court in case of Pfizer Ltd. (330 ITR 62) after referring to the judgement of in case of Dresser Rand (supra) held that insurance claim on stock in trade was not an independent item of income and therefore has to be considered as integral part of business profit. However, since the sales tax refund has been specifically considered by the Hon'ble High Court in case of Dresser Rand (supra)…

ACIT Cir. - 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

…ipts like recovery of freight insurance, packing charges, sales tax refund and service income will not be part of business profit and has to be considered for reduction as per Explanation (baa). Subsequently, however Hon'ble High Court in case of Pfizer Ltd. (330 ITR 62) after referring to the judgement of in case of Dresser Rand (supra) held that insurance claim on stock in trade was not an independent item of income and therefore has to be considered as integral part of business profit. However, since the sales tax refund has been specifically considered by the Hon'ble High Court in case of Dresser Rand (supra)…

M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

…ipts like recovery of freight insurance, packing charges, sales tax refund and service income will not be part of business profit and has to be considered for reduction as per Explanation (baa). Subsequently, however Hon'ble High Court in case of Pfizer Ltd. (330 ITR 62) after referring to the judgement of in case of Dresser Rand (supra) held that insurance claim on stock in trade was not an independent item of income and therefore has to be considered as integral part of business profit. However, since the sales tax refund has been specifically considered by the Hon'ble High Court in case of Dresser Rand (supra)…

Bajaj Finserv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Large Texpayer Unit, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Bajaj Finserv Limited, बनाम/ The Deputy Commissioner 226,Bajaj Bhawan, Of Income Tax – Large Vs. 2 Flr,Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Taxpayer Unit, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2924N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Bajaj Finserv Limited, बनाम/ The Deputy Commissioner 226,Bajaj Bhawan, of Income Tax – Large Vs. 2 flr,Jamnalal Bajaj Marg Taxpayer Unit, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCB2924N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Percy j Pardiwalla, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Shishir Dhamija, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 09/04/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronou…

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

…d 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. Assessment Year: 2001-02 18.2 The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Pfizer Ltd. (2010 233 CTR 521), considering its 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 engages in the manufacture of Pharmaceuticals and animal health products. For the assessment y…

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan Healthcare Ltd.,) Mumbai - 400020 (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Circle 7(1), Aayakar Ltd.,) Bhavan (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Joshi Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 29/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3927/Mum/2006 & 4066/Mum/2006 For A.Y.2002-03 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)Xix/It-104/05-06 Dated 31/03/2006 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/03/2005 By The Ld. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.

…find that it has been held in the following decisions that the aforesaid receipts would be „profits of the business‟ for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act :- a) Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Pfizer Ltd reported in 330 ITR 62 (Bom) in respect of insurance claim. b) Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of R N Gupta Co Ltd vs CIT reported in 351 ITR 369 in respect of sale of scrap. c) Decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs GKN Sinter Metal P Ltd reported in 153 ITD 311 in respect of cash discount. 9.1. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abbott India Ltd, Mumbai

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

…arties and perused the materials available on record. The issue of insurance claim received on transit insurance for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Pfizer Ltd 330 ITR 62 (Bom) has considered similar issue in the light of deduction u/s 80HHC and held that insurance claim for loss of stock in trade must stand on the same footing as the income that would have been realized by the assesse on sale of stock in trade. Insurance claim on account of the stock in trade does not constitute an independent income or a recei…

Small Industires Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2002-03 M/S. Small Industries Dcit, Development Bank Of India Central Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Sidbi, 4Th Floor, Corporate Mumbai Vs. Accounts Dept., Msme Development Centre, C-11, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051, ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcs3480N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Gaurav Kabra Shri Manjunath Swamy-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 30/05/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2018 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…e proposition, he has relied on the following decisions :- i) M/s. Novartis India Limited vs ACIT, ITA No. 1249 of 2010 dated 18.3.2011 (Mumbai ITAT) ii) Deutsche Bank A.G vs DDIT, ITA No. 3791 of 2010 dated 10.4.2013 (Mumbai ITAT) iii) CIT vs Pfizer Limited, 191 ITR 626 (Bombay) HC iv) CIT vs H.E.G. Ltd., 324 ITR 331 (2010) SC 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue has defended the order of the CIT(A) by reiterating the reasoning contained therein, which we have already noted in 6 Small Industries Development Bank of India the above paras and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.…

Small Industries Developers Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2003-04

…proposition, he has relied on the following decisions :- i) M/s. Novartis India Limited vs ACIT, ITA No. 1249 of 2010 dated 18.3.2011 (Mumbai ITAT) ii) Deutsche Bank A.G vs DDIT, ITA No. 3791 of 2010 dated 10.4.2013 (Mumbai ITAT) iii) CIT vs Pfizer Limited, 191 ITR 626 (Bombay) HC iv) CIT vs H.E.G. Ltd., 324 ITR 331 (2010) SC 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue has defended the order of the CIT(A) by reiterating the reasoning contained therein, which we have already noted in the above paras and is not 5 SIDBI being repeated for the sake of brevity. Apart therefrom, the ld. CIT-DR p…