CIT v. Xylon

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil B.Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of The ld AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaepd3658F Assessee By : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.07.22 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room no.1927, 19th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAEPD3658F Assessee by : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, AR Revenue by : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR Date of hearing: 06.07.22 Date of pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cent…

DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Firstsource Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Firstsource Solutions Income Tax Limited 5Th Floor, Paradigm B 12(2)(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mindspace, Link Road Mk Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci8904N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Firstsource Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Solutions Limited Tax 5Th Floor, Paradigm B 12(2)(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mindspace, Link Road Malad (W) Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci8904N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Firstsource Solutions Income Tax Limited 5th Floor, Paradigm B 12(2)(1), Room No.223, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mindspace, Link Road MK Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 PAN/GIR No.AAACI8904N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/s. Firstsource Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Solutions Limited Tax 5th Floor, Paradigm B 12(2)(1), Room No.223, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mindspace, Link Road Malad (W) MK Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAACI8904N (Appella…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pidilite Industries Limited, Mumbai

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7351/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7352/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(2)(2) M/S. Pidilite Industries Ltd. Room No.674, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 7Th Floor, Regent Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-4156-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Awungshi Gimson-Ld.Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms. Vidhi Doshi-Ld.Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7351/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7352/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT-3(2)(2) M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd. Room No.674, 6th Floor बनाम/ 7th Floor, Regent Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.…

Lily Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

…ould apply only when a benefit or perquisite is received in kind and has no application where the benefit is received in the form of cash or money. In fact, based on such reasoning, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 90 DTR 205 held that the waiver of liability to repay a loan towards purchase of a capital asset would not fall within the purview of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act as the said section applies only when the benefit or perquisite is received in kind. Factually speaking, in the instant case, the so-called benefit understood by the Assessing Officer, has been received…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Lily Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

…ould apply only when a benefit or perquisite is received in kind and has no application where the benefit is received in the form of cash or money. In fact, based on such reasoning, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 90 DTR 205 held that the waiver of liability to repay a loan towards purchase of a capital asset would not fall within the purview of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act as the said section applies only when the benefit or perquisite is received in kind. Factually speaking, in the instant case, the so-called benefit understood by the Assessing Officer, has been received…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lily Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

…ould apply only when a benefit or perquisite is received in kind and has no application where the benefit is received in the form of cash or money. In fact, based on such reasoning, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 90 DTR 205 held that the waiver of liability to repay a loan towards purchase of a capital asset would not fall within the purview of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act as the said section applies only when the benefit or perquisite is received in kind. Factually speaking, in the instant case, the so-called benefit understood by the Assessing Officer, has been received…

Lily Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

…ould apply only when a benefit or perquisite is received in kind and has no application where the benefit is received in the form of cash or money. In fact, based on such reasoning, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 90 DTR 205 held that the waiver of liability to repay a loan towards purchase of a capital asset would not fall within the purview of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act as the said section applies only when the benefit or perquisite is received in kind. Factually speaking, in the instant case, the so-called benefit understood by the Assessing Officer, has been received…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Synchem Chemicals (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5907/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-10(1) M/s. Synchem Chemicals (I) P.Ltd. 455, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan 159, CST Road, Kalina Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Santacruz (E),Mumbai-400 019. PAN:AAECS 5576 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" /…

DCIT 3(3), Mumbai vs. Rama Industries Ltd, Mumbai

…imilar to the facts of the case under consideration, that assessee had offered the interest portion of the waiver for taxation, that the 1857-59-Rama waiver of principal amount was a capital receipt. He relied upon the case of Xylon Holdings Private Limited (90 DTR 205). 3.3.We have heard the rival submissions and barriers the material before us. We find that the State bank of Hyderabad and unit trust of India had waived Rs. 7.45 crores during the year under consideration, during the assessment proceedings the assessee had claimed that there was no reduction of liability and therefore it was not a taxable receip…