CIT v. TVS Motors Ltd.

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

…le to principle. Regarding the characterizing of the expenses incurred on Dies and Moulds as revenue expenditure, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of TVS Motors Ltd. [2014] 364 ITR 1 (Mad.) and decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself wherein these expenses have been held to be revenue expenditure in nature. 3. The learned PCIT, however, was not persuaded by the submissions of the assessee. He concluded that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct necessary enquiries on the aforesaid four issues…

DCIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BIOSTACH INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

…nd moulds represents only replacement, and hence, should be allowed as a deduction. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions in favour of the assessee: i. CIT v/s Malerkotla Steels & Alloys (2011) 336 ITR 49 (P&H) ii. CIT v/s TVS Motors Ltd. (2014) 364 ITR 1 (Madras) iii. CIT v/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (ITA No. 351/2012) (Delhi HC) In the case of CIT v/s Malerkotla Steels & Alloys (supra), it has been held that the cost of moulds used in the manufacturing process should be treated as P a g e | 6 ITA No. 349/Mum/2016 & 3559/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Biostodt India Ltd. a revenue expenditure since the life of mo…

BIOSTADT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

…nd moulds represents only replacement, and hence, should be allowed as a deduction. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions in favour of the assessee: i. CIT v/s Malerkotla Steels & Alloys (2011) 336 ITR 49 (P&H) ii. CIT v/s TVS Motors Ltd. (2014) 364 ITR 1 (Madras) iii. CIT v/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (ITA No. 351/2012) (Delhi HC) In the case of CIT v/s Malerkotla Steels & Alloys (supra), it has been held that the cost of moulds used in the manufacturing process should be treated as P a g e | 6 ITA No. 349/Mum/2016 & 3559/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Biostodt India Ltd. a revenue expenditure since the life of mo…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

…the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.3144/Mum/1999 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench after placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Ltd. 364 ITR 144 decided the issue in favour of assessee. Since, in the impugned assessment year there is no distinguishing feature, we see no reason to take a different view. Consequently, additional ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed” Following the decision of ITAT this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.' 42. In view of the above, as the issue is re…

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

…he assessee. He placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a. ITAT-AY 1995-96 (ITA No.3144/Mum/1999) b. ITAT-AY 1996-97 (ITA No. 1781/Mum/1999) c. ITAT-AY 1997-98 (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2001) d. CIT vs. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Ltd. [2014] 364 ITR 144 (SC) On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order lower authorities. 44. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee claimed that such miscellaneous receipts do not form part of the sales of manufacture goods to represent cost of goods manufactured for the purpose of calculating the deduction u/s 80HHC and same oug…

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

…he assessee. He placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a. ITAT-AY 1995-96 (ITA No.3144/Mum/1999) b. ITAT-AY 1996-97 (ITA No. 1781/Mum/1999) c. ITAT-AY 1997-98 (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2001) d. CIT vs. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Ltd. [2014] 364 ITR 144 (SC) On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order lower authorities. 44. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee claimed that such miscellaneous receipts do not form part of the sales of manufacture goods to represent cost of goods manufactured for the purpose of calculating the deduction u/s 80HHC and same oug…

DCIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT DB-III), ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ITA No.6324/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :1991-1992) & Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Bajaj Holdings & Income Tax(LTU-1), Mumbai Investment Ltd (Formerly known 29th Floor, Centre-I, World as M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd.,) 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2nd Floor Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Mumbai – 400 005 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACB3370K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Rahul Raman- CIT DR Assessee by Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Date of H…