Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT

Shcil Service Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed

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

…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…

International Cargo Terminals & Rail Infrastructure Private Limited (Formerly Known As Boxtrans Logistrics (India) Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

…a trading liability. (h) As stated above, the amounts borrowed by the appellant from Mr. Naresh Kotak had been utilised for the purposes of acquiring fixed assets. In view of the judgment of the High Court at Mumbai in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 261 ITR 501, which has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5320, 5319 of 2012 and 4435 of 2018 (Paras 15 and 16), the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act cannot be applied to borrowings which have been utilised for capital purposes. (i) Reliance placed by the Ld. DR on judgment of the High Court at Bombay in Solid Containers Ltd. v…

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Alco Chem Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.847/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) Dcit-(1)(1) M/S. Ashok Alco-Chem Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.579, Aaykar Bhavan 406, Sharda Chambers,33 Vs. Mumbai-400 020. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-6876-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. K. Sivaram & Sh. Sashank Dundu- Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Udaya Jakke-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

…rking capital loans) were diverted for capital projects, the waiver thereof would constitute waiver-off of capital liability not taxable either u/s 28(iv) or u/s 41(1) as per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2003 261 ITR 501). 3.2 Regarding addition of interest differential of Rs.148.33 Lacs, the assessee submitted that the said amount was never provided for in the books of accounts and therefore, the question of claiming the deduction of the same would not arise. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A), after considering factual matrix, concurred with assessee’s submissions by observing…

DCIT - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rama Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Rama Industries Ltd Income Tax- 3(3)(1), 812, Raheja Chambers Room No.609, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5096C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Rama Industries Ltd Income Tax- 3(3)(1), 812, Raheja Chambers Room No.609, 6th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No. AAACR5096C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri D.G. Pansari Assessee by None Date of Hearing 05/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement 21/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.3634/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2010-11 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissi…

Ispat Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2011-12 Ispat Energy Ltd., The Acit Circle 3(2), The Enclave, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Vs. New Prabhadevi Road, Phabhadevi, Mumbai 400 013. Pan Aaaci4970M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…any trading liability and therefore the waiver of capital liability would not become income on the grounds of remission or cessation thereof. The Ld AR in this regard relied upon the jurisdictional High Court judgement in case of Mahindra & Mahindra V/s CIT [261 ITR 501], wherein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that loan taken for purchase of Plant 85 Machinery and waiver of the principal amount of loan taken, was neither covered by sec 28(iv) nor by sec 41(1). 10. The Ld AR in this regard also relied upon the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgement in the case of Logitronics P Ltd V/c CIT 333 ITR 386 (De…

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singh

…Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co. (219 ITR 644). We agree with the contentions of the Ld A.R. Though the AO has stated that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (261 ITR 501) is based on the facts of that case, yet the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in clear terms that Section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits in cash or money (see CIT v. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd.). 11.3. The Ld A.R further submitted that the provisions of sec.41(1) also would not apply, since the waiver relates to the term loan and further the assess…

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singh

…Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co. (219 ITR 644). We agree with the contentions of the Ld A.R. Though the AO has stated that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (261 ITR 501) is based on the facts of that case, yet the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in clear terms that Section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits in cash or money (see CIT v. Alchemic Pvt. Ltd.). 11.3. The Ld A.R further submitted that the provisions of sec.41(1) also would not apply, since the waiver relates to the term loan and further the assess…