Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT

Asst CIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…functioning of banking operations. It was submitted that such expenditure is incidental to business and allowable under section 37(1). The Ld.AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd reported in 261 ITR 501 and following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Court in this issue: i. Shri Venkata Satyanarayan Rice Mills vs. CIT (223 ITR 101) (Supreme Court; ii. CIT vs. India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad); iii. CIT vs. Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) (Guj); iv. CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (243 ITR 284) ; v. Indian O…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…functioning of banking operations. It was submitted that such expenditure is incidental to business and allowable under section 37(1). The Ld.AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd reported in 261 ITR 501 and following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Court in this issue: i. Shri Venkata Satyanarayan Rice Mills vs. CIT (223 ITR 101) (Supreme Court; ii. CIT vs. India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad); iii. CIT vs. Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) (Guj); iv. CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (243 ITR 284) ; v. Indian O…

DCIT-5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

…he ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee has written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission of trading liability and had relied on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC) b. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC) c. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC) d. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.) 127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when there has been no deduction granted to the…

Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

…e ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee has written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission of trading liability and had relied on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC) b. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC) c. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC) d. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.) 127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when there has been no deduction granted to the…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

…he ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee has written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission of trading liability and had relied on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC) b. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC) c. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC) d. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.) 127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when there has been no deduction granted to the…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

…he ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee has written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission of trading liability and had relied on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC) b. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC) c. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC) d. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.) 127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when there has been no deduction granted to the…

Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

…he ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee has written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission of trading liability and had relied on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC) b. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC) c. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC) d. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.) 127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when there has been no deduction granted to the…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

…he ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee has written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission of trading liability and had relied on the following decisions: a. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC) b. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC) c. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC) d. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.) 127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when there has been no deduction granted to the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

…lular Limited) nature arising in the course of business. Thus, the first proposition was that Section 28(iv) cannot be invoked for taxing the capital receipts for which he placed reliance on the following judgments:-  CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC) as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 93 taxmann.com 32 (SC)  CIT vs. Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (26 Taxmann.com 333) (Bom)  CIT vs. STADS Ltd. (2015) (373 ITR 313/61 taxmann.com 33) (Madras)  ITO vs. Shreyans Investment (P) Ltd. (31 Taxmann.com 11) (Kol-Trib) • ITO vs. M/s. Richvik Enterprises Private Limited (ITA no. 389/KOL/2012 order…

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

…lular Limited) nature arising in the course of business. Thus, the first proposition was that Section 28(iv) cannot be invoked for taxing the capital receipts for which he placed reliance on the following judgments:-  CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC) as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 93 taxmann.com 32 (SC)  CIT vs. Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (26 Taxmann.com 333) (Bom)  CIT vs. STADS Ltd. (2015) (373 ITR 313/61 taxmann.com 33) (Madras)  ITO vs. Shreyans Investment (P) Ltd. (31 Taxmann.com 11) (Kol-Trib) • ITO vs. M/s. Richvik Enterprises Private Limited (ITA no. 389/KOL/2012 order…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…the assessee before the learned CIT – A who dealt with the above issue as per paragraph number 4 of his appellate order, wherein he held that his predecessor in the assessee's own case relying upon the judgment in case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd versus CIT [261 ITR 501] has held that the contribution made by the assessee to societies which runs the schools in which children of the employees of the company study, is an allowable expenditure because it was incurred predominantly for benefit of staff. He further held that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by his predecessor in earlier assessmen…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

…the assessee before the learned CIT – A who dealt with the above issue as per paragraph number 4 of his appellate order, wherein he held that his predecessor in the assessee's own case relying upon the judgment in case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd versus CIT [261 ITR 501] has held that the contribution made by the assessee to societies which runs the schools in which children of the employees of the company study, is an allowable expenditure because it was incurred predominantly for benefit of staff. He further held that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by his predecessor in earlier assessmen…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…ssessee before the learned CIT – A who dealt with the above issue as per paragraph number 4 of his appellate order, wherein he held that his predecessor in the assessee's own case relying upon the judgment in case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd versus CIT [261 ITR 501] has held that the contribution made by the assessee to societies which runs the schools in which children of the employees of the company study, is an allowable expenditure because it was incurred predominantly for benefit of staff. He further held that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by his predecessor in earlier ass…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Samagra Wealthmax Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

…of normal transaction of the business." 7.7 Further Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of ITO vs Shreyans Investments Private Limited 141 ITD 672 (Kolkata-Tribunal) relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra ang Mahindra 261 ITR 501 (Bom.) had taken a view that reserve arising out of amalgamation cannot be treated as income under section 28(iv) of the Income- Samagra Walthmax Private Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 Tax Act, 1961. The relevant extracts of the said decision are as under: 8. To find out whether or not the benefit, even if that be so, is on capital account or revenue acc…