CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

404 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2018#598 most cited

What is CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. authority for?

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. · 404 ITR 1 SC · Section 28(iv) · Section 41(1) · waiver of loan · loan for capital assets · capital receipt · business income · trading liability · capital liability · taxability of loan waiver

Also reported as

93 Taxmann.com 3293 Taxmann 32

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 28(iv)Section 41(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 14ASection 40(a)(ia)Section 133ASection 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

waiver of loansection 28(iv)section 14bsection 35abbsection 35ddsection 41(1)section 41section 10(33)section 40a(7)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 43b(b)short deduction of tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

MITHI SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2371/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2371/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mithi Software Technologies V The Income Tax Private Limited, S Officer, 101, Mayfair Court, Nachiket Ward-14(3), Pune. Park, Baner Road, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcm9352P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Agra Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 25.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 72

…Limited during F.Y.2004-05. Assessee explained that it was a long term borrowing duly reflected in balance sheet. Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of CIT Vs. Mahindra & 4 ITA No.2371/PUN/2025 [A] Mahindra Ltd., in [2018] 404 ITR 1 (SC) order dated 24.04.2018. Ld.AR also relied on the following decisions :  I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd., [2023] 155 taxmann.com 45(Karnataka)  DCIT Vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai Tribunal)  ITAT Pune Bench decision in Seco Tools India Private Limited Vs. Addl.CIT in ITA No.445/PUN/2020 3. The ld.AR submitted that in all the…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S RUDRA BUILDWELL HOMES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4119/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. CIT, M/s Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. PAN-AAFCR6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. CIT, M/s Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. PAN-AAECR9589E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, Adv. and Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Department by Shri Mahesh K…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2032/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1859/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2013-14 AMD India Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.102 & 103, EPIP, Whitefield, of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle 1(1)(1), PAN: AABCC 3447R Bengaluru. [Old PAN: AAECA 6756C] APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.2032/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. AMD India Private Ltd., of Income Tax, No.102 & 103, EPIP, Whitefield, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. PAN: AABCC 3447R…

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3356/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271Section 274Section 28Section 37Section 40

…o the provisions of section 28 to show that it does not have application in the present case since the receipt is in capital in nature. For this proposition she relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd v. CIT (404 ITR 1) as well as other judicial precedents. It was further stated that the reimbursement received by the appellant cannot be brought to tax as it has no income element embedded therein. For this proposition she relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 392 ITR 186. Therefore it was submitted that the addition deserves to be deleted. S…

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S I G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED

The appeals are disposed of and the application for

ITA/80/2025HC Karnataka12 Nov 2025

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

Section 260

…- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45932-DB ITA No. 80 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 79 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2025 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2025 IN ITA No. 80/2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), 3RD FL…

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…sessee and thus, it is submitted that such reversal cannot be brought to tax u/s. 28(iv) of the Act.Furthermore, it is submitted this issue is also covered its favour by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it has been held that waiver of loan for acquiring capital assets cannot be taxed u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. 8.5 The ld DR vehemently submitted defended the impugned order and prayed for confirmation of the addition. 8.6 We observed from the submissions that the liability pertains to the supply of capital equipment during the years 2004…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, CC-2 v. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar v. DCIT, Central Circle-II Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appel…

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, CC-2 v. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar v. DCIT, Central Circle-II Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appel…

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)

…visions deal with the taxation of benefits and perquisites in kind i.e., non-monetary benefits arising from business or profession. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra vs. Commissioner (404 ITR 1 SC) where it is held as under: "On a plain reading of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act, prima facie, it appears that for the applicability of the said provision, the income which can be taxed shall arise from the business or profession. Also, in order to invoke the provision of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act, the benefit which is received has to be in…

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)

…isions deal with the taxation of benefits and perquisites in kind i.e., non-monetary benefits arising from business or profession. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra vs. Commissioner (404 ITR 1 – SC) where it is held as under: “On a plain reading of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act, prima facie, it appears that for the applicability of the said provision, the income which can be taxed shall arise from the business or profession. Also, in order to invoke the provision of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act, the benefit which is received has to be…

SAMEER GEHLAUT,LONDON vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2532/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R
Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 28

…aptured by the AO in the reasons\nrecorded for reopening the assessment. Thus, neither the assessee has any business\nnor he is engaged in the profession. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Reported in 404 ITR 1, squarely\napplies to the facts of the case wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context\nof Section 28(iv) of the Act has held as under:-\n“10. The term "loan" generally refers to borrowing something, especially a sum of\ncash that is to be paid back along with the interest decided mutually by the parties.\nIn other terms, the debtor is under…

DCIT-5(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2987/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM\nAND\nSMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nM/s. Vodafone Idea Limited\n(formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\n10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century\nMills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar\nMarg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030.\nVs.\nDCIT-3(2), Mumbai\nRoom No. 608 6th Floor, Aayakar\nBhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate,\nMumbai - 400 020.\nPAN/GIR No. AAACB2100P\n(Assessee)\n:\n(Respondent)\nITA No. 2178/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nITA No. 2180/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)\nITA No.…

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2150/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nBEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM\nAND\nSMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM\n\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nM/s. Vodafone Idea Limited\n(formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\n10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century\nMills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar\nMarg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030.\nVs.\nDCIT-3(2), Mumbai\nRoom No. 608 6th Floor, Aayakar\nBhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate,\nMumbai - 400 020.\n\nPAN/GIR No. AAACB2100P\n(Assessee)\n:\n(Respondent)\n\nITA No. 2178/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nITA No. 2180/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)\n…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2179/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM\nAND\nSMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nM/s. Vodafone Idea Limited\n(formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\n10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century\nMills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar\nMarg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030.\nVs.\nDCIT-3(2), Mumbai\nRoom No. 608 6th Floor, Aayakar\nBhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate,\nMumbai - 400 020.\nPAN/GIR No. AAACB2100P\n(Assessee)\n:\n(Respondent)\nITA No. 2178/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nITA No. 2180/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)\nITA No.…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 2178/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM\nAND\nSMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nM/s. Vodafone Idea Limited\n(formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\n10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century\nMills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar\nMarg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030.\nVs.\nDCIT-3(2), Mumbai\nRoom No. 608 6th Floor, Aayakar\nBhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate,\nMumbai - 400 020.\nPAN/GIR No. AAACB2100P\n(Assessee)\n:\n(Respondent)\nITA No. 2178/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nITA No. 2180/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)\nITA No.…

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1775/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM\nAND\nSMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nM/s. Vodafone Idea Limited\n(formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\n10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century\nMills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar\nMarg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030.\nVs.\nDCIT-3(2), Mumbai\nRoom No. 608 6th Floor, Aayakar\nBhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate,\nMumbai - 400 020.\nPAN/GIR No. AAACB2100P\n(Assessee)\n:\n(Respondent)\nITA No. 2178/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nITA No. 2180/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)\nITA No.…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5945/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM\nAND\nSMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM\nITA No. 1775/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nM/s. Vodafone Idea Limited\n(formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)\n10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century\nMills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar\nMarg, Worli, Mumbai – 400030.\nVs.\nDCIT-3(2), Mumbai\nRoom No. 608 6th Floor, Aayakar\nBhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate,\nMumbai - 400 020.\nPAN/GIR No. AAACB2100P\n(Assessee)\n:\n(Respondent)\nITA No. 2178/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)\nITA No. 2180/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)\nITA No.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. VENUS REMEDIES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 378/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Shri Jaspoal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 251(1)(a)Section 28Section 41(1)

…s, and added the said amount to the total income. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition by primarily relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [(2018) 404 ITR 1 (SC)]. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the waiver of loans, on the facts of the case would not fall within the ambit of Section 28(iv) as the benefit arising is monetary in nature, and not in kind. 5. The Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion and contends that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the present case. It was…

DCIT, CC-2(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. ADARSH DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed on its merit and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1160/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 37

…g/2024 Page 42 of 60 ITA Nos.1082 & 1160/Bang/2024 Page 43 of 60 14. In her written submissions, the ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, specifically on para 15 to 17 of the decision in the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 404 ITR 1 (SC). Mainly the contention is that there is a difference between trading liability and other liabilities and same corollary to be drawn for loan given on a capital account and on a trading account. Thus, the claim of the ld. CIT(DR) is that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by wrong appreciation of facts and glaring omission of the ld. CIT(A…

ADARSH DEVELOPERS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed on its merit and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1082/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 37

…g/2024 Page 42 of 60 ITA Nos.1082 & 1160/Bang/2024 Page 43 of 60 14. In her written submissions, the ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, specifically on para 15 to 17 of the decision in the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 404 ITR 1 (SC). Mainly the contention is that there is a difference between trading liability and other liabilities and same corollary to be drawn for loan given on a capital account and on a trading account. Thus, the claim of the ld. CIT(DR) is that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by wrong appreciation of facts and glaring omission of the ld. CIT(A…

Showing 1–20 of 164 · Page 1 of 9

...