CIT v. Sulzer India Ltd.

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

…estion as framed in para-5 of this order is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” (Emphasis Supplied) We note that the above decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal has since been affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court [(2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bombay), 05/12/2014] and thereafter, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax- 6, Mum. vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. [(2018] 252 Taxman 375 (SC)/(2018) 300 CTR 209 (SC), 21/11/2017]. 21.5. Further, on perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A) we find that it was contended by the Assessee before the CIT(A) that the…

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…23 crore which was treated as revenue income by the Ld. CIT(A) instead of capital receipt claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Suzler India Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 717 affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 74. We have perused the order (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court which is on identical issue decided in favour of the assessee by returning following findings: “1. The controversy before the Tribunal is that whether the difference of deferred sales tax liability is chargeable to tat as…

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…23 crore which was treated as revenue income by the Ld. CIT(A) instead of capital receipt claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Suzler India Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 717 affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 74. We have perused the order (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court which is on identical issue decided in favour of the assessee by returning following findings: “1. The controversy before the Tribunal is that whether the difference of deferred sales tax liability is chargeable to tat as…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

…„benefit‟ is now settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. 88 taxmann.com 273 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sulzer India Ltd., 369 ITR 717(Bom) holding that when an assessee discharges the present value of future obligation, it would not be a case of any „benefit‟ accruing to the assessee, as the assessee has discharged the full liability at the present value. Therefore, as there is no „benefit‟ obtained by or accruing to the assessee, the question of applicability of section 41(1)…

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA Nos. 652 & 1424/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-1, Thane M/s Everest Industries Limited. Room No. 22, B-Wing 6th floor, G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Road, New Delhi-110044. PAN No. AAACE 7550 N Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 719 & 720/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Everest Industries Limited, Dy. CIT, Circle-1 D-206, Sector-63, Noida-201301…

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA Nos. 652 & 1424/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-1, Thane M/s Everest Industries Limited. Room No. 22, B-Wing 6th floor, G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Road, New Delhi-110044. PAN No. AAACE 7550 N Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 719 & 720/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Everest Industries Limited, Dy. CIT, Circle-1 D-206, Sector-63, Noida-201301…

DCIT CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA Nos. 652 & 1424/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-1, Thane M/s Everest Industries Limited. Room No. 22, B-Wing 6th floor, G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Road, New Delhi-110044. PAN No. AAACE 7550 N Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 719 & 720/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Everest Industries Limited, Dy. CIT, Circle-1 D-206, Sector-63, Noida-201301…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 ,, THANE vs. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA Nos. 652 & 1424/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-1, Thane M/s Everest Industries Limited. Room No. 22, B-Wing 6th floor, G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Road, New Delhi-110044. PAN No. AAACE 7550 N Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 719 & 720/MUM/2020 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Everest Industries Limited, Dy. CIT, Circle-1 D-206, Sector-63, Noida-201301…

DCIT-LTU - 2, MUMBAI vs. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…were also heard along with these cross appeals, will also follow mutatis mutandis on this assessment year as well. This issue is covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court‟s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Sulzer India Ltd [(2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bom)] which is now approved by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Balkrishna Industries Ltd [(2017) 88 taxmann.com 273 (SC)]. In fact, in some of the assessment years, even the ground of appeal of the Assessing Officer admits this position and challenges the relief granted only on the ground that the matter has not reached finality as a…

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

…3. A plain reading of the above ground of appeal clearly shows that, even going by the stand of the Assessing Officer, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Sulzer India Ltd [(2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bom)] but yet the appeal has been filed because the revenue has challenged the correctness of the said judgment. That very approach is simply erroneous because it is only elementary in law that the mere pendency of the appeal, against a binding judicial precedent, in a higher judicial forum does not dilute, curtail or otherwise narrow down its b…

AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

…3. A plain reading of the above ground of appeal clearly shows that, even going by the stand of the Assessing Officer, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs Sulzer India Ltd [(2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bom)] but yet the appeal has been filed because the revenue has challenged the correctness of the said judgment. That very approach is simply erroneous because it is only elementary in law that the mere pendency of the appeal, against a binding judicial precedent, in a higher judicial forum does not dilute, curtail or otherwise narrow down its b…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…‘benefit’ is now settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. 88 taxmann.com 273 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sulzer India Ltd., 369 ITR 717(Bom) holding that when an assessee discharges the present value of future obligation, it would not be a case of any ‘benefit’ accruing to the assessee, as the assessee has discharged the full liability at the present value. Therefore, as there is no ‘benefit’ obtained by or accruing to the assessee, the question of applicability of section 41(1)…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

…‘benefit’ is now settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. 88 taxmann.com 273 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sulzer India Ltd., 369 ITR 717(Bom) holding that when an assessee discharges the present value of future obligation, it would not be a case of any ‘benefit’ accruing to the assessee, as the assessee has discharged the full liability at the present value. Therefore, as there is no ‘benefit’ obtained by or accruing to the assessee, the question of applicability of section 41(1)…

KRISHNAPING ALLOYS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 10 (1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkrishnaping Alloys Ltd Vs. Acit-10(1)(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Aaykar Bhawan Pinnacle Corporate Park M.K.Road Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 020 Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aacck0121F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…OME TAX APPEAL NO.5372 OF2010 (Bombay High Court) f) CIT vs Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. on 24 May. 20 f 3 ITA No.235/2013 (Delhi High Court) g) CIT vs Alvares & Thomas [2016] 69 iaxmann.com 257 (Karnataka HC) dated 24 march 2016. h) CIT v.v Sither India Ltd [2014] 369 ITR 717 (Bombay HC) i) CIT vs Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd[2002] 122 TAXMAN 91 (SC) j) CIT vs Smt. Sita Devi Juneja I. T.A. No. 619 of 2009(PUNJAB AND HARYANA HC) 9. The Ld. DR, on the other had strongly supporting order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in grounds taken by the assessee challenging reopening of assessment, because the reopening w…

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M Balaganesh(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai Mahindra Towers,Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent)

…of Tribunal in Sulzer India Limited in ITA No. 2944/Mum/2007, it was held that it was a capital receipt and could not be termed as a remission or cessation of liability. The order of Special Bench was upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case reported in 369 ITR 717. The Special Bench in Sulzer India Ltd. (supra) held that premature re-payment of loan at present discounted value does not result in waiver or cessation of liability. The said amount being capital in nature, provision of section 28 & 41 would not apply. The Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sulzer India…

CAPRIHANS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCCC -36, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos. 4252 To 4254/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08) M/S Caprihans India Ltd. Dy. Cit Central Circl-36 Block-D, Shivsagar Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Dr. A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan – Aaacc1646F (Appellant) (Respondent) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S Caprihans India Ltd. Central Circle-36, Room No.11, Block-D, Shivsagar Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Dr. Annie Besant Road,Worli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai- 400 018 Pan – Aaacc1646F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Murlidhar, A.R Respondent By: Shri Awungshi Gimson, D.R Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2019 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Assessee & The Revenue Being Aggrieved With The Order Passed By The Cit(A)- 41, Mumbai, Dated 31.12.2009 For A.Y. 2005-06 Have Preferred Cross-Appeals Before Us. Also, The Assessee Is In Appeal Against The Respective Orders Of The Cit(A)-41 For A.Y. 2006-07 & A.Y. 2007-08, Both Dated 31.12.2009. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned

…ion or cessation of a liability, therefore, the same was not taxable under Sec. 41(1) of the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Sulzer India ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bom). P a g e | 9 ITA No.4252 to 4254/Mum/2011 & ITA No.4573/Mum/2011 A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2007-08 M/s Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-36 Per contra, the ld. D.R had relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was (iv) submitted by the ld. D.R that as the assessee had not raised the aforesaid claim either in its return of in…