CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd.

219 ITR 644Supreme Court of India1996#4820 most cited
24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28(iv)Section 45(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)non-compete feesection 28(iv)section 28(i)section 43(1)commercial rightsfull value of considerationright to receivelack of enquirysection 45section 48section 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd.

Smithkline Beecham Consumer Brands Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Patiala

ITR/62/1995HC Punjab & Haryana27 Nov 2025
Section 143Section 35BSection 40Section 40A(5)

…40(c) against assessee who has not preferred appeal, thus, revenue has wrongly raised question of said deduction. Question of deduction under Section 40A(5) stands settled against revenue by supreme court in ‘CIT Vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P) Limited’ 219 ITR 644 (SC). 6. The question of extra-shift allowance on new plant and machinery as a whole or on the basis of number of days the machinery was put to use stands settled in ‘South India Viscose Ltd. Vs. CIT’ 227 ITR 286 (SC). 7. The question of inclusion of excise duty in closing stock stands settled in ‘CIT Vs. Dynavision Ltd.’ 348 ITR 380 (S…

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Damayanti Ramachandran, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore

ITA 149/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.19/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore V. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.149/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.20/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.A

Section 45(4)

…ey and that the benefit or perquisite which can be brought to tax under the said Section is a benefit in kind. A monetary amount, as in the present case, cannot be assessed under the said Section. CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 85 Taxman 381/219 ITR 644 (SC) also supports this view where the Apex Court was considering a similar provision which used the words "whether convertible into money or not" following the words "any benefit or amenity or perquisite". Their submission was that what is within the mischief of the sub clause is an expenditure incurred for providing a benefit, amenity or perqui…

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Damayanti Ramachandran, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

ITA 103/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 45(4)

…ey and that the benefit or perquisite which can be brought to tax under the said Section is a benefit in kind. A monetary amount, as in the present case, cannot be assessed under the said Section. CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 85 Taxman 381/219 ITR 644 (SC) also supports this view where the Apex Court was considering a similar provision which used the words "whether convertible into money or not" following the words "any benefit or amenity or perquisite". Their submission was that what is within the mischief of the sub clause is an expenditure incurred for providing a benefit, amenity or perqui…

Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1 (1), Pune

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

ITA 757/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „B‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON.JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.756 & 757/PUN/2019 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1) Awasari Phata, Village Pune. Manchar, Tal – Ambegaon, Dist - Pune PAN: AABCP 0425 G Assessee Respondent /Revenue ITA Nos.488 & 489/PUN/2019 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) ACIT, Circle-4, Pune. vs Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., Awasari Phata, Village Manchar, Tal – Ambegaon, Dist – Pune. PAN: AABCP 0425 G Appellant/Revenue Assessee Assessee by : Shri Suh…

Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1 (1), Pune

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

ITA 756/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „B‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON.JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.756 & 757/PUN/2019 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1) Awasari Phata, Village Pune. Manchar, Tal – Ambegaon, Dist - Pune PAN: AABCP 0425 G Assessee Respondent /Revenue ITA Nos.488 & 489/PUN/2019 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) ACIT, Circle-4, Pune. vs Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., Awasari Phata, Village Manchar, Tal – Ambegaon, Dist – Pune. PAN: AABCP 0425 G Appellant/Revenue Assessee Assessee by : Shri Suh…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune vs. Parag Milk Foods Pvt.Ltd, Pune

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

ITA 489/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „B‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON.JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.756 & 757/PUN/2019 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1) Awasari Phata, Village Pune. Manchar, Tal – Ambegaon, Dist - Pune PAN: AABCP 0425 G Assessee Respondent /Revenue ITA Nos.488 & 489/PUN/2019 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) ACIT, Circle-4, Pune. vs Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., Awasari Phata, Village Manchar, Tal – Ambegaon, Dist – Pune. PAN: AABCP 0425 G Appellant/Revenue Assessee Assessee by : Shri Suh…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune vs. Parag Milk Foods Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 488/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „B‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON.JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.756 & 757/PUN/2019 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1) Awasari Phata, Village Pune. Manchar, Tal – Ambegaon, Dist - Pune PAN: AABCP 0425 G Assessee Respondent /Revenue ITA Nos.488 & 489/PUN/2019 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) ACIT, Circle-4, Pune. vs Parag Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., Awasari Phata, Village Manchar, Tal – Ambegaon, Dist – Pune. PAN: AABCP 0425 G Appellant/Revenue Assessee Assessee by : Shri Suh…

Aurangabad Electricals Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

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

ITA 225/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, Midc Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aacca2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.199/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/s. M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, MIDC Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AACCA2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.225/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, MIDC Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AACCA2867L .......अऩी…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, Pune

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

ITA 199/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. M/S. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, Midc Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aacca2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.199/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/s. M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, MIDC Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AACCA2867L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.225/PUN/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Limited, B-7, MIDC Chakan, Tal Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AACCA2867L .......अऩी…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik vs. Haldex India Pvt.Ltd, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 852/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.852/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik Vs. Haldex India Pvt. Ltd., B-71, Midc, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabch9044B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar & Shri Viksit Bhargava Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik Dated 01.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Nashik Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,58,41,000/- Made U/S 28(Iv) Of The Act On Account Of Octroi Refund Treating It Revenue In Nature. 02. The Order Of The Cit(A) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer May Be Restored. 03. The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete Any Ground Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Onkar &For Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.852/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Circle-1, Nashik Vs. Haldex India Pvt. Ltd., B-71, MIDC, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. PAN : AABCH9044B Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe Assessee by : Shri R. D. Onkar & Shri Viksit Bhargava Date of hearing : 18.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 19.05.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of ld. Commi…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…perquisite must be one arising in the course of business.” 36.6. Moreover, we find, the credits received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, reported in 205 ITR 353 (Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), have held that “provisions of section 28(iv) are applicable only when benefit or perquisite is received in a non-monetary form”. 36.7 Therefore, we hold that the provisio…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…perquisite must be one arising in the course of business.” 36.6. Moreover, we find, the credits received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, reported in 205 ITR 353 (Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), have held that “provisions of section 28(iv) are applicable only when benefit or perquisite is received in a non-monetary form”. 36.7 Therefore, we hold that the provisio…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…perquisite must be one arising in the course of business.” 36.6. Moreover, we find, the credits received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, reported in 205 ITR 353 (Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), have held that “provisions of section 28(iv) are applicable only when benefit or perquisite is received in a non-monetary form”. 36.7 Therefore, we hold that the provisio…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 413/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…perquisite must be one arising in the course of business.” 36.6. Moreover, we find, the credits received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, reported in 205 ITR 353 (Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), have held that “provisions of section 28(iv) are applicable only when benefit or perquisite is received in a non-monetary form”. 36.7 Therefore, we hold that the provisio…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 412/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…perquisite must be one arising in the course of business.” 36.6. Moreover, we find, the credits received by the Assessee from IAE, in the present case, are in the form of money. The Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 219 ITR 644 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, reported in 205 ITR 353 (Del.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), have held that “provisions of section 28(iv) are applicable only when benefit or perquisite is received in a non-monetary form”. 36.7 Therefore, we hold that the provisio…

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as

ITA 2575/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mrs. Arti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 115JSection 14A

…ly to the impugned transaction, since the provisions of sec.28(iv) has been held to be applicable only when the benefit is received otherwise than in cash as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co. (219 ITR 644). We agree with the contentions of the Ld A.R. Though the AO has stated that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (261 ITR 501) is based on the facts of that case, yet the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in clear terms that Section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits in cash or money (see CIT…

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as

ITA 2482/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mrs. Arti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 115JSection 14A

…ly to the impugned transaction, since the provisions of sec.28(iv) has been held to be applicable only when the benefit is received otherwise than in cash as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co. (219 ITR 644). We agree with the contentions of the Ld A.R. Though the AO has stated that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (261 ITR 501) is based on the facts of that case, yet the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in clear terms that Section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits in cash or money (see CIT…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…e claim, the ld. AR has cited the following judgments before the CIT(Appeals). i) P. Ganesh Chettiary vs. CIT (133 ITR 103)[Mad.] ii) AVM Ltd. vs. CIT (146 ITR 355) iii) Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (130 ITR 168). iv) Mafthlal Ganga Bai & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (219 ITR 644) v) Garden Silk Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (320 ITR 720 (Guj.) 19.3 The CIT(Appeals) observed that the above case laws are all in support of the assessee’s case that sec.28(iv) has no application to a money transaction and hence not applicable to the facts of the present case under consideration. In view of the above findings, the CIT (Appeals) o…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…e claim, the ld. AR has cited the following judgments before the CIT(Appeals). i) P. Ganesh Chettiary vs. CIT (133 ITR 103)[Mad.] ii) AVM Ltd. vs. CIT (146 ITR 355) iii) Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (130 ITR 168). iv) Mafthlal Ganga Bai & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (219 ITR 644) v) Garden Silk Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (320 ITR 720 (Guj.) 19.3 The CIT(Appeals) observed that the above case laws are all in support of the assessee’s case that sec.28(iv) has no application to a money transaction and hence not applicable to the facts of the present case under consideration. In view of the above findings, the CIT (Appeals) o…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…e claim, the ld. AR has cited the following judgments before the CIT(Appeals). i) P. Ganesh Chettiary vs. CIT (133 ITR 103)[Mad.] ii) AVM Ltd. vs. CIT (146 ITR 355) iii) Alchemic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (130 ITR 168). iv) Mafthlal Ganga Bai & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (219 ITR 644) v) Garden Silk Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (320 ITR 720 (Guj.) 19.3 The CIT(Appeals) observed that the above case laws are all in support of the assessee’s case that sec.28(iv) has no application to a money transaction and hence not applicable to the facts of the present case under consideration. In view of the above findings, the CIT (Appeals) o…

CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd., 204 ITR 208 (Gujarat) (v) CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Company Pvt. Ltd. (219 ITR 644) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax