Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CIT

210 ITR 274High Court1994#19862 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2018.

Judgments citing Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CIT

Icpa Health Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6244/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhita No.6245/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2013-14) Icpa Health Products Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Off. 216-219,Adarsh Income Tax, Circle-10(1)(1), Industrial Estate, Sahar Mumbai, Road, Chakala, Andheri(E), Vs. Room No. 702, C-10, Mumbai-400099 Praytaksha Kar Bhavan, Pan: Aaac13042F Bkc, Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Yogesh Thar Ar Revenue By : Sh. V. Justine Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Are Directed Against The Separate Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-17

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Thar ARFor Respondent: Sh. V. Justine Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 37Section 37(1)

…roposition the ld AR for the assessee submits that expenses incurred for sale promotion and advertisement and not for the purpose of distributing the gift, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the decisions of Calcutta High Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd Vs CIT (210 ITR 274) (Cal), CIT Vs Dabur Pvt Ltd (250ITR 301)(Kol), decision of Tribunal in ACIT Vs Dupen Laboratories Private Ltd (ITA No.5195/M/2013), Macleod’s Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs ACIT (taxmann.com250) and Syncom Formulation Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No.6429/M/2012). In support of legal submissions that the Circular No.5/2012 is prospective in nature, relied on th…

Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT Range 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 2880/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jigar SaiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 37(2)Section 7

…roviding freebees to medical practioners, could not be applied retro -spectively,that CBDT had enlarged the scope of 'Indian Medical Council Regulation, 2002' . 2.2.1.He relied upon the cases of Solvay Pharma India Ltd. (89 taxmann.com 249) Indian Oxygen Ltd (210 ITR 274) (Cal.),PHL Pharma (P.) Ltd. (ITA 4605/Mum/2014 dated 12/01/2017), Max Hospital, Pritampura v. Medical Council of India (WP No. 1334/2013 dated 10/01/ 2014), Khemchand Motilal Jain Tobacco Product (P) Ltd.(340 ITR 99),Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd. (ITA 6429,6428/Mum/2012 dated 23/12/2015), UCB India (P.) Ltd (ITA 6681/ Mum/20l3 dated 29/07/2016)an…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Phl Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4605/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M DayasagarFor Respondent: S/Shri J.D. Mistry &Nimesh Jain

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…roducts. ii) Giving a small gift items bearing company logo does not tantamount to gift to the doctors which can be said to be prohibited under the guidelines issued by ‘Medical Council of India’. Reliance was placed in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd v. CIT (210 ITR 274), wherein the distribution of articles embossed with the name and logo of the assessee company was held to be allowable. iii) Regarding the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 and its affirmation by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of ‘Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (SS) vs. CBDT’, it was pointed out that the Hon…

M. Salgaocar & Bors. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

C.A. No.-000657-000657 - 1994Supreme Court10 Apr 2000

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ETC

Section 17(2)Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 36Section 40ASection 40A(5)

…ate to the employee by the assessee. High Court, therefore, said that the grant of loan without charging any interest could not be considered as a benefit or a perquisite within the meaning of Section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. In Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CIT, (1994) 210 ITR 274 (Cal.) following its earlier decision in CIT v. P.R.S. Oberoi, (1990) 183 ITR 103 it was held that the grant of interest-free loans by the assessee to its employees did not amount to perquisite, benefit or amenity whether for the purposes of Section 17(2) and/or Section 40A(5) of the Act. The question before the court was whether notional interes…