Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Lily Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

…on. As the phraseology of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act shows, it is the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, which is sought to be covered therein. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs CIT, 261 ITR 501 (Bom) held that the said provision would apply only when a benefit or perquisite is received in kind and has no application where the benefit is received in the form of cash or money. In fact, based on such reasoning, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 90 DTR 205 held that the waiver of liability to repa…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Lily Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

…on. As the phraseology of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act shows, it is the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, which is sought to be covered therein. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs CIT, 261 ITR 501 (Bom) held that the said provision would apply only when a benefit or perquisite is received in kind and has no application where the benefit is received in the form of cash or money. In fact, based on such reasoning, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 90 DTR 205 held that the waiver of liability to repa…

Lily Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

…on. As the phraseology of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act shows, it is the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, which is sought to be covered therein. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs CIT, 261 ITR 501 (Bom) held that the said provision would apply only when a benefit or perquisite is received in kind and has no application where the benefit is received in the form of cash or money. In fact, based on such reasoning, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 90 DTR 205 held that the waiver of liability to repa…

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ontended that the aforesaid decision of the tribunal was not applicable for the year under consideration. The ld counsel, therefore, placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Mahindra & Mahindra as reported in (261 ITR 501) where the assessee provided donation to an education Society which ran a school in which children of the employees of the company were studying and the Hon’ble court held the same allowable as expenditure incurred for business purpose. The ld. counsel also contended that Mumbai Tribunal in the following two cases also held so. Indian oil Corpora…

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ontended that the aforesaid decision of the tribunal was not applicable for the year under consideration. The ld counsel, therefore, placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Mahindra & Mahindra as reported in (261 ITR 501) where the assessee provided donation to an education Society which ran a school in which children of the employees of the company were studying and the Hon’ble court held the same allowable as expenditure incurred for business purpose. The ld. counsel also contended that Mumbai Tribunal in the following two cases also held so. Indian oil Corpora…

Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1031/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 116, Bajaj Bhavan Income Tax 11Th Floor, Nariman Point बनाम/ Circle 3(3)(1) Mumbai – 400 021 Aaykar Bhavan Vs. 6Th Floor, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-5093-D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…ITA No.1031/M/2015 Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Limited Assessment Year 2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ ई ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी महावीर िसंह,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1031/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 116, Bajaj Bhavan Income Tax 11th Floor, Nariman Point बनाम/ Circle 3(3)(1) Mumbai – 400 021 Aaykar Bhavan Vs. 6th Floor, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Co No.193/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year :2002-03) Ito 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., R.No.552, Aayakar Bhavan Bombay House, Mumbai 24, Homi Modi Street Fort, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaact2727Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

…re Polyster (ITAT Mumbai) (supra) 16. In support of the proposition that provision of Section 41(1) is not attracted, learned AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements. 1. CCIT v Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (122 Taxman 91)(SC) 2. Mahindra & Mahindra v CIT (261 ITR 501)(Bom.) 3. CIT v Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Ltd. 155 Taxman (90)(Kar.) 4. CIT v Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd. (26 taxmann.com 333)(Bom.) 5. CIT v Softworks Computers (P.) Ltd. (35 taxmann.com 610)(Bom.) 6. CIT v Santogen Silk Mills Ltd. (57 taxmann.com 208)(Bom.) 7. CIT v V. S. Dempo & Co. Ltd. (60 taxmann.com 443)(Bom.) 8. Bombay Gas…

ITO 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saurabh Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

…t, (ii) the waiver of loan by the lender is not a profit of the nature u/s 28(iv) of the Act and therefore, the same is not taxable as a business income. The learned CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (2003)261 ITR 501 (Bom) and Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. vs. Additional CIT 54 SOT 13 (2012). Considering the above, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the A.O. 5. Before us, the learned DR relied on the decision in the case of Solid Container Ltd. vs. DCIT 308 ITR 417 (Bom) ; CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd 222 ITR 344 and CIT v…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Synchem Chemicals (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

…sed the various transactions entered into with for entities namely Samiksh Investments Private Ltd., Santosh Leasing Private Ltd., Vishtosh Investments and Finance Private Ltd. and Zuari Leathers Private Ltd. He referred to the cases of Mahindra and Mahindra (261 ITR 501)Xylon Holdings (P)Ltd. (211 Taxman 108) and Tosha International Ltd. (176 Taxman 187) and held that loan was utilised for capital purposes and was not extended for any trading purposes, that the conditions for invoking the provisions of section 41(1) were not existing, that benefit/perquisite were not received in- kind, that section 28(iv) was no…

Epc Industries Ltd, Nashik vs. ACIT OSD 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2007-08) Epc Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Osd 10(1) Plot No.H-109, Midc Mumbai Ambad Nashik – 422010 Pan : Aaace2659J (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…owed have been utilized for the purpose of fixed assets, it does not result in a revenue receipts. For this proposition he placed reliance on following cases. (1) CIT V/s Tosha International Ltd. [176 taxman 187 (Del)] (2) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v/s CIT [261 ITR 501(Bom)] (3) Travancore Rubber & Tea Co Ltd. v/s CIT [243 ITR 158 (SC)] 6 M/s EPC Industries Ltd. Iskaremeco Regent Ltd.. v/s CIT [196 Taxman 103 (Mad)] (5) Logitronic P Ltd. v/s. CIT [333 ITR 386 (Del)] (6) CIT V/s Xylon Holding Pvt. Ltd. [26 Taxman.com 333 (Bom)] 7. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below in reopening…

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Garware Polyester Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri & Shri Amit Shukla & Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6169/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6541/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S Garware Polyester Dy. Cit- 8(1), Limited, 50 A, Swami Mumbai. V. Nityanand Marg, Western Express Highway, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 57. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacgo571D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Deshpande Revenue By : Shri Anuj Kisandwala सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-01-2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Cross Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28Th July, 2011, Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 15, Mumbai For The Quantum Assessment Passed U/S 144(C)(4) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita 6169/M/11 & Ita 6541/M/11 2

…ncipal is capital in nature and, therefore, is capital receipt not chargeable to tax even in the deeming provisions of section 41(1), strong reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra v. CIT reported in 261 ITR 501. When the A.O. confronted with another decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Limited reported in 308 ITR 417, the assessee submitted that the same is not applicable on the facts of the present case, because in that case the assessee has taken a loan as a trading receipt and the same was credited to the P&L account…

Garware Polyester Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri & Shri Amit Shukla & Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6169/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6541/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S Garware Polyester Dy. Cit- 8(1), Limited, 50 A, Swami Mumbai. V. Nityanand Marg, Western Express Highway, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 57. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacgo571D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Deshpande Revenue By : Shri Anuj Kisandwala सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-01-2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Cross Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28Th July, 2011, Passed By The Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 15, Mumbai For The Quantum Assessment Passed U/S 144(C)(4) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita 6169/M/11 & Ita 6541/M/11 2

…ncipal is capital in nature and, therefore, is capital receipt not chargeable to tax even in the deeming provisions of section 41(1), strong reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra v. CIT reported in 261 ITR 501. When the A.O. confronted with another decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Limited reported in 308 ITR 417, the assessee submitted that the same is not applicable on the facts of the present case, because in that case the assessee has taken a loan as a trading receipt and the same was credited to the P&L account…

Asst CIT Cir 11(5) vs. Jsw Steel Ltd

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

…ing 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. (s…

Jsw Steel Ltd vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(5)

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

…ing 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. (s…