CIT v. Sulzer India Ltd.

369 ITR 717High Court2014#3108 most cited

What is CIT v. Sulzer India Ltd. authority for?

Where an assessee discharges a future liability at its present value, it does not result in a "benefit" accruing to the assessee, and therefore, Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sulzer India Ltd. · 369 ITR 717 · Section 41(1) · remission of trading liability · cessation of trading liability · capital receipt · deferred sales tax liability · present value of future obligation · benefit accruing to assessee

Sections most often in play

Section 80IASection 40(a)(ii)Section 43BSection 143(3)Section 2(42A)Section 244ASection 28(iv)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)(a)section 28(va)section 38section 80hsection 94section 80hhcsection 43(1)section 80hhblock of assetssection 41(1)additional depreciationopening wdv

Judgments citing CIT v. Sulzer India Ltd.

Cable Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7369/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(1)

…the sale tax under deferred sales tax scheme which is provided by the State Government to incentivize the a section of the trade and industry. The said decision of the special bench of the tribunal was further affirmed by the Bombay High court as reported in 369 ITR 717(Bom). The Hon’ble apex court in the case of CIT Vs Balkrishna Industries Ltd. (2017) 88 taxmann.com 273(SC) , the decision of he Hon’ble Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Sulzer India Ltd 369 ITR 717 (Bom) was considered and accepted. The ld AR submitted that in the case of The Ld. AR also submitted that the loan was utilized for the purpose of invest…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Alfa Laval India Ltd., Pune

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2638/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan
Section 14Section 41(1)Section 92C

…apital account. In view of this, it is respectfully submitted that the provisions of Section 41(1) cannot be invoked in the present case. Our company relies upon the following decisions in support of the above submissions. (a) CIT Vs. Sulzer India Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bom.) (b) Jurisdictional Pune Tribunal decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Spicer India Ltd. in ITA No. 1279/PN/2012 for Assessment year 2004-05. (c) Copies of above decisions are enclosed herewith as Annexure-5 2.6 The learned Assessing Officer has further held that this surplus is taxable u/s.28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 28(iv) pr…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Prima Private Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 is

ITA 2162/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2161 & 2162/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(2)Section 43B(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE सु"ी सुषमा चावला, "या"यक सद"य, एवं "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव , लेखा सद"य, के सम"। BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 2161 & 2162/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Prima Private Limited. (Formerly known as Prima Paper Engineering Pvt. Ltd.) T-73, MIDC, Bhosari, Pune-411 026 PAN : AABCP1938J ……""यथ" / Respondent : Shri Rajesh Gawli Revenue by Assessee by :…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Prima Private Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 is

ITA 2161/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2161 & 2162/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(2)Section 43B(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE सु"ी सुषमा चावला, "या"यक सद"य, एवं "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव , लेखा सद"य, के सम"। BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 2161 & 2162/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Prima Private Limited. (Formerly known as Prima Paper Engineering Pvt. Ltd.) T-73, MIDC, Bhosari, Pune-411 026 PAN : AABCP1938J ……""यथ" / Respondent : Shri Rajesh Gawli Revenue by Assessee by :…

Asst CIT (Ltu) -1, Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1776/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R
Section 40A

…o tax as ‘Business income’ of the assessee company u/s 41(1) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sulzer India Ltd. [2014] 369 ITR 717 (Bom) and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. (2017) 88 taxmann.com 273 (SC) which was fairly conceded by the Ld. D.R. CO No.242/M/2017 M/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. 28. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record including the decisions cited by the Ld. A.R…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Prima Private Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 998/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 997 & 998/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 997 & 998/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Prima Pvt. Ltd. T-73, M.I.D.C, Bhosari, Pune-411 026 PAN: AABCP1938J ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue by : Shri Achal Sharma Assessee by : Shri Sharad Shah सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 30.05.20…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Prima Private Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 997/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 997 & 998/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 997 & 998/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Prima Pvt. Ltd. T-73, M.I.D.C, Bhosari, Pune-411 026 PAN: AABCP1938J ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue by : Shri Achal Sharma Assessee by : Shri Sharad Shah सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 30.05.20…

Asst CIT 10(3) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6073/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…been dismissed by aforesaid order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Finally, the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. [2017 88 Taxmann.com 273] has approved the view of Hon’ble Bombay High Court on merits rendered in CIT Vs. Sulzer India Ltd. [369 ITR 717]. In view of the admitted position, Ground No. 1 raised in revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. 3.1 Rest of the grounds raised in revenue’s appeal as well as in cross- objections of the assessee are related with certain Transfer Pricing [TP] adjustment against Advertising, Marketing & Sales Promotion Expenses [AMP] incurred by the assessee during i…

ACIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palm Olive (I) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2778/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…been dismissed by aforesaid order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Finally, the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. [2017 88 Taxmann.com 273] has approved the view of Hon’ble Bombay High Court on merits rendered in CIT Vs. Sulzer India Ltd. [369 ITR 717]. In view of the admitted position, Ground No. 1 raised in revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. 3.1 Rest of the grounds raised in revenue’s appeal as well as in cross- objections of the assessee are related with certain Transfer Pricing [TP] adjustment against Advertising, Marketing & Sales Promotion Expenses [AMP] incurred by the assessee during i…

ITO 26(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Ravinder Singh Lamba, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1541/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…r considering the submissions of the assessee and noticing that the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Special Bench in Sulzer India Ltd. (supra), in the meanwhile, has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Sulzer India Ltd., [2014] 369 ITR 717 (Bom.), directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. Learned Counsels appearing for both the parties have agreed before us that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Sulzer India Ltd. (supra…

ACIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Mediorals Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as above

ITA 532/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Dharmesh Shah
Section 143(3)

…eipt chargeable to tax. Accordingly, he brought to tax the sum of Rs.1,04,81,524/- in the assessment order. The CIT(A), however, has deleted the addition by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sulzer India Limited, 369 ITR 717 (Bom.). Against such a decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, there is no rebuttal by the Revenue that the issue in this appeal is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sulzer India Limited (supra) and, therefore, we find no merit in the appeal of the Revenue. However, before…

DCIT, Chennai vs. S.L.Lumax Ltd., Sriperambudur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1578/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1578/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 28Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1578/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. S L Lumax Ltd, Income Tax, G-15, Sipcot Industrial Park, Corporate Circle 6(2) Irrungattukkotai, Chennai 600 034 Sriperambadur 602 105. [PAN AAACL 1857B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. A.V.…

Grindewell Norton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 523/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Shri N. Padmanabham
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 32

…as not been controverted by the ld. DR appearing before us. 7. In our considered opinion, the controversy in Grounds of appeal no. 1 to 4 is liable to be decided in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of assessee itself reported in 369 ITR 717 (Bom), which has been duly noticed by our coordinate Bench in its order dated 27.7.2016 (supra) in the case of the assessee for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the following words :- “4.7 The perusal of the order of the Hon’ble High Court reveals that in the earlier two years i.e. A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07, it has been held by the Tribun…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

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

ITA 35/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…remission or cessation of trading liability u/s. 41(1) of the Act. 18. At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Suzler India Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bom.) wherein the same issue was decided in favour of the assessee by observing in Para 51 and 52 as under:- “51. In the final analysis, we find that Mr. Gupta can derive no assistance from the Judgment of Polyflex India (P.) Ltd. (supra). There the Assessee paid excise duty on certain goods. Pursuant to the decision of the Customs, Excise and G…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

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

ITA 34/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…remission or cessation of trading liability u/s. 41(1) of the Act. 18. At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Suzler India Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bom.) wherein the same issue was decided in favour of the assessee by observing in Para 51 and 52 as under:- “51. In the final analysis, we find that Mr. Gupta can derive no assistance from the Judgment of Polyflex India (P.) Ltd. (supra). There the Assessee paid excise duty on certain goods. Pursuant to the decision of the Customs, Excise and G…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

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

ITA 33/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…remission or cessation of trading liability u/s. 41(1) of the Act. 18. At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Suzler India Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 717 (Bom.) wherein the same issue was decided in favour of the assessee by observing in Para 51 and 52 as under:- “51. In the final analysis, we find that Mr. Gupta can derive no assistance from the Judgment of Polyflex India (P.) Ltd. (supra). There the Assessee paid excise duty on certain goods. Pursuant to the decision of the Customs, Excise and G…

Grindwell Norton Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.Comm.of Income Tax-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5800/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)(a)Section 14ASection 28Section 32Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,G ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Grindwell Norton Ltd., Addl. CIT 1(1) Kalyaniwall & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, 5th बनाम/ Army & Navy Building, 3rd Floor, Vs. Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAACG8725B Assessment Year: 2008-09 Grindwell Norton Ltd., Addl. CIT 1(1) Kalyaniwall & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, 5th बनाम/ Army…

Grindwell Norton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 528/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)(a)Section 14ASection 28Section 32Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,G ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Grindwell Norton Ltd., Addl. CIT 1(1) Kalyaniwall & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, 5th बनाम/ Army & Navy Building, 3rd Floor, Vs. Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAACG8725B Assessment Year: 2008-09 Grindwell Norton Ltd., Addl. CIT 1(1) Kalyaniwall & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, 5th बनाम/ Army…