Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT

261 ITR 501High Court2003#688 most cited

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

Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked if the assessee has not been granted a deduction for the relevant liability in earlier years.

147

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT · 261 ITR 501 · Section 41(1) · invocation · no prior deduction · remission of liability · cessation of liability · trading liability · capital goods liability · business income

Also reported as

128 Taxmann 394

Sections most often in play

Section 28(iv)Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 40(a)(ia)Section 56(2)(x)Section 143(2)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

waiver of loansection 35abbsection 28(iv)section 35ddright to receivesection 41section 41(1)section 80ia(4)section 194hamalgamationsection 32(1)profits and gains of business or profession

Judgments citing 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

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…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

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…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…

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)

….20/Chny/2025 (AY-2016-17) Damayanti Ramachandran :: 18 :: "This submission can be rejected straight away because the CIT(A) has, in paragraph 7.8 of his order, accepted Respondent's contentions relying on Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 128 Taxman 394/261 ITR 501 (Bom.), Commissioner v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 32/255 Taxman 305/404 ITR 1 (SC) as approved by the Apex Court that Section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits in cash or money and that the benefit or perquisite which can be brought to tax under the said Section is a benefit in kind. A monetary amount, as in the present cas…

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)

….20/Chny/2025 (AY-2016-17) Damayanti Ramachandran :: 18 :: “This submission can be rejected straight away because the CIT(A) has, in paragraph 7.8 of his order, accepted Respondent's contentions relying on Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 128 Taxman 394/261 ITR 501 (Bom.), Commissioner v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 32/255 Taxman 305/404 ITR 1 (SC) as approved by the Apex Court that Section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits in cash or money and that the benefit or perquisite which can be brought to tax under the said Section is a benefit in kind. A monetary amount, as in the present cas…

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)

…ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee\nhas written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission\nof trading liability and had relied on the following decisions:\na. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC)\nb. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC)\nc. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC)\nd. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.)\n127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when\nthere has been no deduction granted to…

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)

…. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee\nhas written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission\nof trading liability and had relied on the following decisions:\n\na. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC)\nb. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC)\nc. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC)\nd. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.)\n\n127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when\nthere has been no deduction granted…

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)

…ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee\nhas written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission\nof trading liability and had relied on the following decisions:\na. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC)\nb. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC)\nc. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC)\nd. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.)\n127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when\nthere has been no deduction granted to…

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)

…ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee\nhas written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission\nof trading liability and had relied on the following decisions:\na. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC)\nb. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC)\nc. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC)\nd. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.)\n127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when\nthere has been no deduction granted to…

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)

…ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee\nhas written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission\nof trading liability and had relied on the following decisions:\na. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC)\nb. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC)\nc. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC)\nd. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.)\n127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when\nthere has been no deduction granted to…

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)

…ld. AR further stated that in the present case, the assessee\nhas written back on account creditors for capital goods which is not akin to remission\nof trading liability and had relied on the following decisions:\na. CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom HC)\nb. CIT vs. Compaq Electric Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 400 (SC)\nc. CIT vs. Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay HC)\nd. DCIT vs. Ramani Exports [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai – Trib.)\n127. On perusal of the above decisions, it is now settled proposition of law that when\nthere has been no deduction granted to…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. PRAKASH NIMMAGADDA, HYDERABAD, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)
Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

…quisite must be in the nature of a business receipt or revenue receipt. No matter how wide be the scope of Section 28(iv), the difference between a capital receipt and revenue receipt cannot be overlooked. In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 501/128 Taxman 394, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has, in the context of this significant distinction between revenue and capital receipts, held that waiver of principal amount in respect of imports of plant and machinery could, by no stretch of logic, be treated as 'business income', and, therefore, as an income taxable under section 28(iv). One must be…

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

ITA 4513/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

…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

ITA 4318/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

…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

ITA 4105/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

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

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…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

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

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

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…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

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

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

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…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

ITA 2165/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT
Section 19Section 41(1)

…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…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. BUHARI HOLDINGS PRIVAE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 28

…ust be in the nature of a business receipt or revenue receipt. No matter how wide be the scope of Section 28(iv) of the Act, the difference between a capital receipt and revenue receipt cannot be overlooked. In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs. CIT (261 ITR 501), Hon'ble Bombay High Court has, in the context of this significant distinction between revenue and capital receipts, held that waiver of principal amount in respect of imports of plant and machinery could, by no stretch of logic, be treated as 'business income', and, therefore, as an income taxable under section 28(iv) of the Act. One must bear…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 915/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 3Section 32(2)

…account, constituted income or not. The High Court of Delhi was pleased to come to the conclusion that the amount is not covered by the provision contained in section 41(1) of the Act by placing reliance on the decision of the Mahindra & Mahindra reported in 261 ITR 501(BOM). We note that the Hon”ble Supreme Court was pleased to confirm the view of Hon”ble High court of Bombay in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra reported in 404 ITR 1 (SC). 13. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. reported in 404 ITR 1 (SC) is placed at page 426 of the paper book. The facts of the case the…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 476/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(9)

…submitted that the same is also not covered under Section 41(1) of the Act as not allowed earlier under any provisions of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetan Chemicals Private Limited 267 ITR 770. A.Ys. 2010-11 11 We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the total share capital of Rs.687.60 Lakhs, the holders of 174557 OCCPS of Rs.100/- each aggregating to Rs.174.56 Lakhs and the same has been surrendered by the assessee in respect of their rights in the redempt…

Showing 1–20 of 147 · Page 1 of 8

...