DCIT-8(2), Mumbai v. PHL Pharma (P) Ltd.

184 TTJ 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#23257 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2021.

Judgments citing DCIT-8(2), Mumbai v. PHL Pharma (P) Ltd.

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4785/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…medical practitioners. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the specific issue in hand i.e as to whether the prohibition by M/s Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai Mumbai in the case of DCIT-8(2), Mumbai vs. PHL Pharma (P) Ltd. (2017) 184 TTJ 1 (Mum). The ld. A.R taking us through the aforesaid order drew our attention to the ‘Ground of appeal no. 2’ as was raised before the Tribunal. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal in the aforementioned case of PHL Pharma (P) Ltd. (supra), had held, that the expenditure incurred by the assessee, a pharmaceutical company, for customer re…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4784/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…medical practitioners. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the specific issue in hand i.e as to whether the prohibition by M/s Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai Mumbai in the case of DCIT-8(2), Mumbai vs. PHL Pharma (P) Ltd. (2017) 184 TTJ 1 (Mum). The ld. A.R taking us through the aforesaid order drew our attention to the ‘Ground of appeal no. 2’ as was raised before the Tribunal. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal in the aforementioned case of PHL Pharma (P) Ltd. (supra), had held, that the expenditure incurred by the assessee, a pharmaceutical company, for customer re…

M/S. Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2458/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2010-11 Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) Commerce House Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Rajvansh Apartment Judges Bungalow Road Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aabct 0228 K

For Respondent: Shri Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…61 ITD 63(Mum) wherein such disallowance in the case of pharmaceutical companies was upheld. However, thereafter the Bench has observed that in subsequent decisions viz. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 161 ITD 291 (Mum) and DCIT Vs. PHL Pharma P.Ltd., 184 TTJ 1 (Mum), ITAT has held that Board Circular dated 1.8.2012 cannot be applied with retrospective effect and deleted such disallowance. ITAT, Ahmedabad concurred with subsequent decision of the ITAT, Mumbai on this issue. On the strength of these decisions on identical issue, and on the similar nature of expenditure, the deduction has been given to the…

DCIT-8(2), Mumbai v. PHL Pharma (P) Ltd. (184 TTJ 1) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax