How many judgments cite Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT?

147 judgments on BharatTax cite Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT (261 ITR 501), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 28(iv), Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 56(2)(x).

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT

261 ITR 501High Court2003#685 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 366,470 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 14A Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 40(a)(ia)Section 56(2)(x)Section 143(2)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

waiver of loan section 35abb section 28(iv)section 35dd right to receive section 41 section 41(1)section 80ia(4)section 194h amalgamation section 32(1)profits and gains of business or profession

Judgments citing Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT

Saurashta Cement Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Jamnagar

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

ITA 457/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…

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

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) State Bank of India Finance Reporting & Taxation Department 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre ……………. Appellant Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACS8577K v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2)(1), Mumbai ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(2)(1), Mumbai v/s State Bank of India Finance Reporting & Taxat…

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

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…f payments made towards CSR. 10 Lastly, with respect to the fulfilment of the requirement relating to user of the assets for purposes of business, reliance is placed on judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT 261 ITR 501, wherein, donation to an educational society running a school in which the children of the employees studied has been held to be a business expenditure incurred predominantly for staff welfare. This view has been again followed in the case of the same assessee as reported in 284 ITR 679. Apart from the benefit to the employees, it is also essenti…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

ITO Ward-4(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Ashik Wollen Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of revenue is allowed in terms indicated here

ITA 3021/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…oan was utilized to acquire capital assets, decision of the Tribunal as upheld by this Court would apply to the cases where the loan obtained is utilized for acquiring capital assets. (b) In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [261 ITR 501(Bom.)], loan was to purchase plant and machinery - dies, tools, etc., i.e., capital assets. It was on these facts that waiver of principal amount of loan was held to be neither covered by Section 28(iv) nor Section 41(1) of the Act. (c) In the case of Tosha International Ltd. (supra), neither the Tribunal nor this Court considered the issue from…

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

…flected as part of donation and charity amounting to Rs.14,722,683/-). He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee relying on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 261 ITR 501 (Bom) submitted that the expenses of Rs.1,04,00,000/- be allowed as expense incurred for business purposes. Learned AR submitted that AO did not entertain the claim in the assessment proceedings, therefore, assessee raised the claim before CIT(A). He submitted that Learned CIT(A) at para 7 of the order by placing reliance on the decision of Goetz…

DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Suchir Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Rander &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 115JSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…in respect of each respondent-assessee) held that section 28(iv) of the Act would have no application, as it dealt with the benefit other than cash or money arising out of business as held by this court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 128 Taxman 394/261 ITR 501 (Bom.). It is also to be noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also held that section 68 of the Act will not apply as during the course of assessment proceedings, complete details of the investor i.e. the PAN, balance-sheet of IT return, copies of bank statements, resolution of the board authorising the parties and also the parties…

M/S. Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

ITA 38/SRT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Circle-4, C/O. B.M. Parekh & Co., 203, 2Nd Surat. Floor, Navjivan Society, Bldg. No. 03, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaics1479E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay S. Kapadia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 28/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 71

…Loan also was contended that the remission of this amount under the OTS was a capital receipts as done by the banks under the OTS Schemes and cannot form part of the total income. The appellant relied on several case laws including Chetan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, 267 ITR 770 (Guj.). 6.2.2. On the perusal of the details, it is observed that the company had taken loans from the banks in the earlier years and was unable to repay these outstanding loans to the bank. The appellant approached the banks for One Time Settlement. The appellant credited in his capital reserve account Rs.3,31,80,729/- which represented 'Remissi…

ACIT Cent. Cir5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Infinite Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2241/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(x)

…enge this decision of Ld CIT(A). 9. With regard to the amount of Rs. 2,15,21,467/- assessed under section 28(iv) of the Act, learned CIT(A) deleted the addition following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (261 ITR 501), wherein it was held that the provisions of section 28(iv) shall 4 M/s. Infinite Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. apply only in respect of benefit or perquisite received in kind. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that waiver of loan is in respect of money transaction and therefore would not be in nature of any benefit or perquisite as construed in…

DCIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Alpeshkumar C.Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1991/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh CIT. D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 41(1)Section 54F

…ed or the appellant has credited the same as income or directly credited in capital account. The liability is still standing in the books of account. The Hon'ble Gujarat high court in the case of commissioner of income tax Vs. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 770 while dealing with both section i.e. 41(1) of the IT. Act held that, "Before section 41(1) can be invoked, it is necessary that an allowance or a deduction has been granted during the course of assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability which is incurred by the assesses, and subsequently, during any previous year…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cooper Standard Automotive India P Ltd., Chengalput

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

ITA 794/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.794/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Cooper Standard Automotive Income Tax, India P. Ltd., Plot No. 3-A, Ford Corporate Circle 1(2), Supplier Park, Kilkaranai Village, Chennai 600 034. Melrosapuram Post Via Singaperumal Koil, Chengalpet 603 204. [Pan:Aabcc3665P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 05.01.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is As To Whether The Waiver Of Loan Amount Taken For Business Purposes Is Assessable As Business Income Under Section 28(Iv) R.W.S. 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Or Not.

For Appellant: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.794/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Cooper Standard Automotive Income Tax, India P. Ltd., Plot No. 3-A, Ford Corporate Circle 1(2), Supplier Park, Kilkaranai Village, Chennai 600 034. Melrosapuram Post Via Singaperumal Koil, Chengalpet 603 204. [PAN:AABCC3665P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ…

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…determining the taxability of waiver of loans, various courts have taken divergent views. So, it is imperative to take reference from the said judicial precedents. 6.2.15. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bombay), has held that as Toolings constituted capital asset and not stock-in-trade, section 41(1) was not applicable. The said principle laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay HC that loans received/or taken for purchase of capital assets does not constitute trading liability was upheld by the Hon"ble Apex Court in Commissioner v. Mahindra And Mahindr…

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil B.Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of The ld AO is dismissed

ITA 2239/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaepd3658F Assessee By : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.07.22 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room no.1927, 19th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAEPD3658F Assessee by : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, AR Revenue by : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR Date of hearing: 06.07.22 Date of pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cent…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Kaptronics Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1864/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…s the assessee's own money because of limitation or by any other statutory or contractual right. When such a thing happens, common sense demands that the amount should be treated as income of the assessee. Page 7 of 16 12. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT (261 ITR 501), the Bombay High Court held that no allowance / deduction having allowed in respect of loan taken by assessee for purchase of capital asset, section 41 was not attracted to remission of principal amount of loan. 13. In the instant case, the assessee has not claimed any deduction on account of acquisition of capital asset as the same has been re…

M/S I G Petrochemical Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1317/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(vd)Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

…he assessee in the previous year. Hence the issue was remitted to be examined by the AO. 15. The Delhi High Court in CIT v. Tosha International Ltd. (331 ITR 440) (Bom) followed the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT, 261 ITR 501 (Bom) and held that the amount of loan and interest due by the assessee to banks and financial institutions having never been claimed by the assessee as deduction, waiver of interest or part of principal amount by banks/financial institutions did not give rise to income chargeable to tax u/s. 41(1) of the Act. Being so, the assessee’s loan which…

ACIT, Haryana vs. M/S. S.K. Foils Ltd., Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in

ITA 3504/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit S. K. Foils Ltd. Circle Bhiwani Vs 17, Industrial Area Haryana Bhiwani Pan No. Aabcs8183Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 28Section 41(1)Section 43B

…section 28(iv) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers ltd. Vs DCIT reported in 308 ITR 417&Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 261 ITR 501 and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 333 ITR 386&Rollatainers Ltd. Vs CIT 339 ITR 54. Notwithstanding, if at a later stage assessee contests that funds were borrowed for purchase of capital assets, the same is also taxable u/s 28(iv) and reliance can be placed on the recent judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mad…

ACIT, Circle - 16 (1), Mumbai vs. Bbc Worldwide Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit -16(1), Vs. M/S. Bbc World Wide Room No. 439, 4Th Media Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai – Construction House A, 400 020. Off Linking Road, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052 Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2307F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.C T Mathew. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Siddhesh Chougle. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 92C

…'trading liability' and not with an y other type of liability. Every liability Standing in the balance sheet cannot be presumed to be a 'trading !iabi1jy. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the decision of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. C'IT:[2003] 261 ITR 501 (Born) held that for the applicability of section 41(1) of the Act one of the requirements is that the assessee should have obtained a deduction in the assessment Jar any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee. Further, it was held that even if the assessee had got deduction on allowance, even then sect…

Tmi Rollon Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 460/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Rollon Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, (Formerly Tmi Rollon Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd.,) Circle – 7(1)(1), #271, 8Th Cross, 4Thphase, Bengaluru. Peenya Industrial Layout, Bengaluru– 560 058. Pan : Aaacr 8618 N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. H. V. Gowtham, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru

For Appellant: Shri. H. V. Gowtham, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 41(1)

…IT Vs. Xylon Holdings (P) Ltd., [2012] 26 Taxmann.com 333 (Bom.). The alternative submission that the amount of loan written off would be taxable under Section 28(iv) of the Act was also rejected following the decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (261 ITR 501 (Bom) wherein it was held that Section 28(iv) of the Act would apply only when a benefit or perquisite is received in kind and has no application where benefit is received in cash or money. Page 7 of 7 8. In the result, appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on th…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…ry requirement is that the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, must arise from the business or exercise of a profession. 36.4. We find, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) reported in 261 ITR 501 (Bom.) has held that capital receipt do not come within the purview of section 28(iv) of the Act. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court reads as under:- “10. At the outset, we wish to clarify that this judgment is confined to the facts of this case. This is because the value of any benefit or perquisite arising from business, as con…