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

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

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

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

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…

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

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

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

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

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

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

ITA 413/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

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

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

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

ITA 412/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

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

Greatship (India ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 7151/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7151/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Greatship (India) Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बिाम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Esplande House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-8542-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Assails Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2017 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-I, Mumbai U/S 144C(5) Dated 28/09/2017. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 28Section 92BSection 92C

…e generally exempt from tax. It was also submitted that the provisions of Sec. 28(iv) as invoked by Ld. AO would apply only where the benefit was received in form other than the cash as held by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Co.Ltd. V/s CIT (261 ITR 501) which held that Section 28(iv) could not apply to a benefit that arose in cash or in monetary terms. 4.4 However, the aforesaid submissions could not find favor with Ld. DRP who confirmed the stand of Ld. AO by observing as under: - Discussion & Directions of DRP 7.8 The submission made by the assessee has been examined. The reliance placed on v…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Abb Ltd

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/568/2015HC Karnataka04 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 2(24)Section 220Section 220(2)Section 254Section 260Section 260ASection 45

…e any confidence. 18. The non-computation receipt of Rs.30 Crores was received by the assessee in cash. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to refer to the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., V/s. CIT [261 ITR 501 (Bom)] wherein it is held that Section 28[iv] does not apply to benefits in cash or money, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT V/s. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd., [(1981) 130 ITR 168 (Guj)]. - 23 - 19. The non-computation fee was in fact a payment for sharing customer database and sharing of trai…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of

ITA 4774/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs St Micro Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-8, 202-206,Tolstoy House, 15, New Delhi. Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacs3406M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…eing for the purpose of acquisition of a capital asset any waiver thereof will not constitute income under section 41(1). 13. The aforesaid proposition is also well supported by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra vs. CIT, reported in 261 ITR 501. Similarly, in a later judgment Hon’ble Court in the case of CIT vs. Softworks Computers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 354 ITR 16, after considering the said judgment and also the judgment of Solid containers Ltd., reported in 308 ITR 417, observed and held as under:- “7. We find that the decision of this court in the matter of Solid Containers Ltd. (su…

M/S I G Petrochemicals Ltd vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/219/2011HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 263

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.219 OF 2011 BETWEEN: M/S. I.G. PETROCHEMICALS LTD, D-4, JYOTHI COMPLEX 134/1, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI. MADAN MOHAN DHANUKA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O SRI. HANUMAN PRASAD DHANUKA. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT.JINITHA CHATTERJEE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE-560001.…

Arm Embedded Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1824/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1824/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28

…IT(TP)A No.1824/Bang/2017 ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1824/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Bagmane World Technology Pvt. Ltd., SEZ Citrine Block, 5th Floor, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Doddanakundi Village DCIT Circle-1(1)(1) Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore Bangalore 560 048 PAN NO : AAECA1582E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.…

M/S. Archana Traders Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavansh, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 28Section 51

…s a benefit within the meaning of section 28(iv) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s. Archana Traders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 10 the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 261 ITR 501, wherein it was held that the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act would not have application to any transaction involving money. The above contention of the assessee was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the above said case, the H…

Bharti Airtel Ltd (Formerly Bharti Broadband Ltd), New Delhi vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3899/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 148Section 16Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

…far as waiver of principal amount is concerned, the issue is highly debatable, in as much as, there are direct decisions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. For example, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra 261 ITR 501 has held that waiver of loan utilised for purchase of capital asset is a capital receipt. 11. We are of the considered view that the basis for assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is Note II to Schedule XIIIB of the balance sheet was very much examined by the Assessing Officer while framing assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and, ther…

M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 359/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’ble Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited..................................………………….............Appellant Block-EP, Plot-Y-14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [PAN : AABCP 9181 H] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Kolkata...........................………..…......Respondent Appearances by: Smt. C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel & Smt. K.M. Gupta, Adv., appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Goulen Hangs…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

…an Transport Corpn. Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 203 (Mad) (6) CIT v. Madura Coats Ltd. [2009] 24 DTR (Mad) 24 (7) CIT v. Velumanickam Lodge [2009] 317 ITR 338 (Mad) (8) CIT v. Jayendra Kumar Hiralal [2010] 327 ITR 147 (Guj.) (9) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom) (10) CIT v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mils Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 465 (Raj) (11) CIT (LTU) v. Gail (India) Ltd. 2017-TIOL-1296-HC-DEL-IT (12) MOIL Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (13) CIT v. DLF Universal Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (14) Karnataka State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 54 ITR (Tri…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

M/S Hothur Traders, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 541/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Hothur Traders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8, Of Income Tax, “Hothur House”, Infantry Road, Circle 1, Cantonment, Fort Road, Bellary – 583 104. Bellary – 583 102. Pan: Aaefh 7705H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…e on the premise that loan 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. v. CIT [ 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…

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

…s and being for the purpose of acquisition of a capital asset any waiver thereof will not constitute income under section 41(1). 13. The aforesaid proposition is also well supported by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra v. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 501/128 Taxman 394 (Bom.). Similarly, in a later judgment Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. Softworks Computers (P.) Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 16/216 Taxman 219 (Mag.)/35 taxmann.com 610 (Bom.), after considering the said judgment and also the 33 M/s. Batliboi Limited judgment of Solid Containers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 417/178 Taxman 192 (Bom.),…

M/S Brocade Communications Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 79/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…be invoked. 54. It was submitted that the assets received by the assessee free of cost cannot be brought to tax under Section 28(iv) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: i. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT (reported in 261 ITR 501) ii. Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on ITA No. 1623/2010) and iii. CIT v. Jubilant Securities Ltd. (Order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on ITA No. 503/2010) 55. Further, it was submitted that a benefit/perquisite can be brought to tax under Section 28(iv) of the Act only if the same is in the…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6482/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 14ASection 43D

…he said contention. Before going further, we deem it necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record.:- “13. I have duly considered the submission of the appellant. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT 261 ITR 501 has held that the contribution made by the assessee to an Educational society which runs the school in which children of the employees of the company study, is an allowable business expenditure because it was incurred predominantly for staff welfare. The issue has been decided by the CIT(A) in favour of the appellant in its own case for assessmen…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&

Section 143(3)Section 147

…r the 121 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 assessee’s Staff Welfare Scheme and hence, should be allowed as normal business expenditure. This issue is also covered by the decision in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bombay), wherein it was held that payment made to schools where children of its employees studied were incurred predominantly for staff welfare and consequently, is an allowable business expenditure. Hence, this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 134. The next issue in this appeal of revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting th…

ACIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shcil Services Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negiacit-4(2)(1) Vs. M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Room No.642, 6Th Floor 12/14 Uti Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Bank Street, Cross Line Mumbai-400 020 Near Old Custom House Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(2)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla&Mistry Llp Room No.669, 6Th Floor Army & Navy Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Nitesh Joshi Revenue By T.Kipgen

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194H

…ked, in view of non-fulfillment of conditions contained therein, it is not open to the Revenue to rely on section 41(1) for bringing an amount to tax. iii) Also, as per the judgment of the High Court at Bombay in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT reported in 261 ITR 501 and as subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 404 ITR 1, the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act cannot apply to a waiver of debt on capital account. In the present case, it is undisputed that the debt in favour of Mr. Dilip Kulkarni (contractor) was on a capital account. iv) Independent of section 41(1) of the Act, there is nothin…