Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

Laxminarayan Mandir Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…DR before us was not the basis of the AO for the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act to the assessee in the present case. In this regard, the following observations of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT, [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB), become relevant:- “In our considered opinion the learned Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). His scope of arguments is confined to supporting or defending the impugned orde…

Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(4), Mumbai vs. Laxminarayan Mandir Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…DR before us was not the basis of the AO for the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act to the assessee in the present case. In this regard, the following observations of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT, [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB), become relevant:- “In our considered opinion the learned Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). His scope of arguments is confined to supporting or defending the impugned orde…

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT, AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.419/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2016–17) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–7(1)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd. CTS 1556, Mahindra Towers …………….Respondent Pandurang Butkar Marg P.K. Kurne Chowk, Worli Mumbai 400 018 PAN – AAFCM6870J Assessee by : Shri Viral Shah Revenue by : Smt Mahita Nair Date of Hearing – 12/07/2023 Date of Order – 17/08/2023 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned o…

The ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3517/Mum./2006 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Grasim Industries Ltd. (Corporate Finance Division) A–2, Aditya Birla Centre ……………. Appellant S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACG4464B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(3), Mumbai ITA no.3854/Mum./2006 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–6(3), Mumbai v/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor ……………. Respondent Dr. A.…

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3517/Mum./2006 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Grasim Industries Ltd. (Corporate Finance Division) A–2, Aditya Birla Centre ……………. Appellant S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACG4464B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–6(3), Mumbai ITA no.3854/Mum./2006 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–6(3), Mumbai v/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Century Bhavan, 3rd Floor ……………. Respondent Dr. A.…

DCIT Cir. 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…d, it is evident that aforesaid submissions made by the learned DR were not the basis for disallowance under section 80-IA of the Act. In this regard, the following observations of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT, [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB), becomes relevant:- ―In our considered opinion the learned Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). His scope of arguments is confined to supporting or defending the impugned orde…

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…d, it is evident that aforesaid submissions made by the learned DR were not the basis for disallowance under section 80-IA of the Act. In this regard, the following observations of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT, [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB), becomes relevant:- ―In our considered opinion the learned Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). His scope of arguments is confined to supporting or defending the impugned orde…

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…d, it is evident that aforesaid submissions made by the learned DR were not the basis for disallowance under section 80-IA of the Act. In this regard, the following observations of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT, [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB), becomes relevant:- Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 ―In our considered opinion the learned Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). His scope o…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…d, it is evident that aforesaid submissions made by the learned DR were not the basis for disallowance under section 80-IA of the Act. In this regard, the following observations of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT, [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB), becomes relevant:- Grasim Industries Ltd. ITA no.4754/Mum./2004 ITA no.5978/Mum./2004 ―In our considered opinion the learned Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). His scope o…

Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…it was also not the basis of the learned CIT(A) to hold that provisions of section 195 of the Act are applicable in the present case. In this regard, the following observations of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT, [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB), becomes relevant:- “In our considered opinion the learned Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). His scope of arguments is confined to supporting or defending the impugned ord…

Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…it was also not the basis of the learned CIT(A) to hold that provisions of section 195 of the Act are applicable in the present case. In this regard, the following observations of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs DCIT, [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB), becomes relevant:- “In our considered opinion the learned Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He cannot raise any point different from that considered by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). His scope of arguments is confined to supporting or defending the impugned ord…

Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…ppeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with regard to the provisions for warranty by relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee’s parent company Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 117 Taxmann.com 578 (Mumbai ITAT). With regard to provision of service coupon amounting to Rs. 13,10,373/- the ld. CIT(A) held that the provision for service coupon is made based on a trend of the last 5 years and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the provision is not based on the scientific method. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the provision…

Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…ppeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with regard to the provisions for warranty by relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee’s parent company Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 117 Taxmann.com 578 (Mumbai ITAT). With regard to provision of service coupon amounting to Rs. 13,10,373/- the ld. CIT(A) held that the provision for service coupon is made based on a trend of the last 5 years and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the provision is not based on the scientific method. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the provision…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…siness. First of all it is seen that it is neither the case of the Assessing Officer nor the case of the Ld. CIT(A) that the amount of waiver of lean is to be taxed under section 28(iv). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra vs. CIT 260 ITR 180 501 held that a loan which is originally taken for capital expenditure, if waived, will not give rise to taxable income either under section 41(1) or under section 28(iv). The relevant observation and finding of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reads as under: "The income which can be taxed under Section 28(iv) must not only be referable to a benefi…

State Bank of India-Cag Branch, Mumbai vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

…ed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is barred by limitation, as it was not passed within the reasonable time from the initiation of the proceedings by relying on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra &Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (30 SOT 374), which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT(IT) vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.[2014] 365 ITR 560 (Bom). 4. The brief facts of the case are that the A.O. observed that the assessee bank was allowing tax exemption on leave fare concession (‘LFC’ for short)/ leave travel concession (‘LTC’ for shor…