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 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

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Sicom Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1685/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…regone by the depositors. The issue before the Tribunal whether the principal amount of deposits foregone by the depositors was liable to tax as income. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra vs. CIT (261 ITR 501) and held that waiver of principal amount of loan is not income and provisions of section 41 (1) cannot be applied since it does not represent cessation of trading liability. The Tribunal observed as follows :- "After considering the rival submissions in our opinion, the following undisputed facts emerge out. The balance amount of deposit which c…

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1522/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…regone by the depositors. The issue before the Tribunal whether the principal amount of deposits foregone by the depositors was liable to tax as income. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra vs. CIT (261 ITR 501) and held that waiver of principal amount of loan is not income and provisions of section 41 (1) cannot be applied since it does not represent cessation of trading liability. The Tribunal observed as follows :- "After considering the rival submissions in our opinion, the following undisputed facts emerge out. The balance amount of deposit which c…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…Kirloskar Ltd. vs. CIT: 166 ITR 836 (Kar.); Mahindra and Mahindra vs. CIT Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 349 of 484 261 ITR 501(Bom.); CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra: 284 ITR 679; CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.)] In view of the above, it is submitted, that the aforesaid expenditure are in the alternate admissible for deduction as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 177) Ld. departmental representative relied upon the order of the lower authori…

Grindewell Norton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 523/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Shri N. Padmanabham
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 32

…y affirmed by Hon’ble High Court by passing detailed order which has been briefly discussed in our order above. It is further noted by us that Hon’ble High Court has also relied upon and discussed its earlier order in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited 261 ITR 501, wherein it was held that waiver of the principal amount of loan did not give rise to ‘benefit’ as envisaged u/s 28(iv) and therefore it was not taxable u/s 28(iv). It is further brought to our notice by Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the ‘benefit’ as envisaged u/s 28(iv) is something which actually flows to the assessee in monetary terms. In s…

D.C.I.T. Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs. Vibhadeep Investment & Trading Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as the Cross Objection

ITA 4466/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vibhadeep Investment & Income Tax-3(3), Room Trading Ltd., Mafatlal House, No.609, 6Th Floor, Aayakar H. T. Parekh Marg, Backbay Bhavan, M. K. Road, Reclamation, Mumbai 400 Mumbai 400 020 020 Pan: Aaacv 1946 M Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.155/Mum/2013 (In Ita No.4466/Mum/2012- Ay: 2008-09)

Section 115JSection 143Section 28

…an was taken for purpose of long term investment, which is evident from appellant’s submission as extracted above. Hence after taking note of jurisdictional High Court’s decision of Solid Container Ltd. vs. DCIT supra) and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. reported in 261 ITR 501(Bom) and also the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Jubiliant Securities Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I consider it proper and appropriate to hold that the A. O. was not correct in taxing the aforesaid waiver of loan as revenue receipt. Accordingly on the basis of aforesaid facts of the appellant’s case and also having taken note of the legal pos…

Allcatel Usa Sourcing Lp ( Included in Alcatel-Lucent Usa Inc.), Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8601/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.8601 & 7533/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Alcatel Usa Sourcing The Addl. Director Of बनाम/ Lp (Included In Alcatel- Income-Tax (International Vs. Lucent Usa Inc.) Taxation)-1, C/O Pricewaterhouse Scindia House, Coopers, Mumbai Pwc House, 4Th Floor, Guru Nanak Road, Bandra(W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfa9998A आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7534 & 7535/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Alcatel Usa Sourcing The Addl. Director Of बनाम/ Inc (Included In Alcatel- Income-Tax (International Vs. Lucent Usa Inc.) Taxation)-1, C/O Pricewaterhouse Scindia House, Coopers, Mumbai Pwc House, 4Th Floor, Guru Nanak Road, Bandra(W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagca4535R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwalla अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Madhur Agarwal Shri K.K. Ved ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Jasbir Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234B

…s not transferring any rights of their business to the assessee. He further submits that the provisions of Sec. 28(4) cannot be applied referring to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (261 ITR 501). He submits that cash payment cannot fall under benefit as defined u/s. 28 of the Act. He further submits that if equipment is leased, these is no permanent establishment as held by the Mumbai Bench in the case of DDIT Vs Nederlandsche Overzee Baggermaatsehappiji bv (39 SOT 56). He further submits that `the DRP has not dealt with various submiss…

M/S. Hi- Tech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6080/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jian, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 41

…re or trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof. The remission would become income only if the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of expenditure or trading liability. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 182 CTR (Bom) 34 : (2003) 261 ITR 501 (Bom) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, held that no allowance or deduction having been allowed in respect of loan taken by assessee for purchase of capital assets. S.41(1) was not attracted to remission of principal amount of loan. In the instant case the assessee has not got any deduction on account of acquisition of capital assets as the same has…

Grindwell Norton Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.Comm.of Income Tax-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5800/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)(a)Section 14ASection 28Section 32Section 41(1)

…y affirmed by Hon’ble High Court by passing detailed order which has been briefly discussed in our order above. It is further noted by us that Hon’ble High Court has also relied upon and discussed its earlier order in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited 261 ITR 501, wherein it was held that waiver of the principal amount of loan did not give rise to ‘benefit’ as envisaged u/s 28(iv) and therefore it was not taxable u/s 28(iv). It is further brought to our notice by Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the ‘benefit’ as envisaged u/s 28(iv) is something which actually flows to the assessee in monetary terms. In s…

Grindwell Norton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)(a)Section 14ASection 28Section 32Section 41(1)

…y affirmed by Hon’ble High Court by passing detailed order which has been briefly discussed in our order above. It is further noted by us that Hon’ble High Court has also relied upon and discussed its earlier order in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited 261 ITR 501, wherein it was held that waiver of the principal amount of loan did not give rise to ‘benefit’ as envisaged u/s 28(iv) and therefore it was not taxable u/s 28(iv). It is further brought to our notice by Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the ‘benefit’ as envisaged u/s 28(iv) is something which actually flows to the assessee in monetary terms. In s…

ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Santogen Silk Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1700/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1700/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-8(3)-1, Santogen Silk Mills Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 201, 2Nd Floor, 69-A, Midc Industrial Area, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Andheri East, Mumbai-93 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 7361 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vishwas Jadhav ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. C. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas JadhavFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…it allows relief to the assessee, is based on the waiver of a term loan (from ICICI Bank) for the purchase of machinery. The same stands on a different footing, and is covered in the assessee’s favour by the decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 501 (Bom), even otherwise binding on this tribunal. In fact, the tribunal has clearly held that the loan of ADCB, being toward stock-in-trade, the benefit arising on it’s waiver is taxable. There is no finding at any stage of the proceedings as to the profile of the loan/s waived, and the manner of its’ utilization, i.e., whether for capital asset/s…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3666/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 3668/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s LML Ltd, Tax, Range-3(2), 714, Raheja Chambers, Mumbai 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) M/s LML Ltd, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income 714, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Range-3(2), 213, Nariman Point…

The ACIT RG-3(2) vs. M/S. Lml Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3668/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 3668/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s LML Ltd, Tax, Range-3(2), 714, Raheja Chambers, Mumbai 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) M/s LML Ltd, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income 714, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Range-3(2), 213, Nariman Point…

M/S. Lml Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG.3(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3540/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 3668/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s LML Ltd, Tax, Range-3(2), 714, Raheja Chambers, Mumbai 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) M/s LML Ltd, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income 714, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Range-3(2), 213, Nariman Point…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hindustan Fibers Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 257/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-257/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2009-10)

Section 139Section 28Section 41Section 41(1)

…re or trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof. The remission would become 5 income only if the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of expenditure or trading liability. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CIT, Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay 261 ITR 501, held that no allowance or deduction having been allowed in respect of loan taken by assessee for purchase of capital assets, Section 41 (1) was not attracted to remission of principal amount of loan. In the instant case, the assessee has not got any deduction on account of acquisition of capital assets as the same has been reflected in the balan…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1827/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…e of the aforesaid sum in the return of income as well as the same was clearly forming part of computation of income. Also, the Ld. CIT(A) on merits of the case has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 261 ITR 501 (supra) and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Compaq Electric Ltd. dt. 18.10.2011 reported in (2012) 249 CTR pages 214 to 217. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case and relying upon the judicial pronouncements has rightly come to the conclusion that once the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) wherein the facts were ful…

Trigyn Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6858/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Trigyn Technologies Limited, C/O. M/S. Ravi & Dev, Chartered Accountants, 601, ‘A’Wing, Aurus Chambers, Behind Mahindra Towers, S.S. Amrutwar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400013 Pan:Aaacl2065K ... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 92C

…rd. The learned AR explained that the assessee had contended in the Note that the impugned sum was not in the nature of a trading liability and therefore following the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT, 261 ITR 501(Bom) the impugned sum was not liable to be taxed as income. It was pointed out that the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee by merely applying a subsequent judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 417(Bom) without appreciating that the said judgement was inapplicable to the…

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

ITA 1857/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist-Sr.A.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 254(1)

…of loan or amount received was from regular customers/suppliers during the course of trade, that those facts had been clearly discussed in both the cases, in those cases the loan was taken for trading activity, that the facts of the Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.(128 Taxmann 394) were applicable to the facts of the case under appeal, that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had laid down the ratio in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (supra),that no deduction was claimed in earlier years in respect of the liability the provisions of section 41(1) would not be applicable,that the provisions of section 28 (iv) were not appli…

M/S. R.G. Scientific Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1246/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1246/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2009-10)

Section 115Section 115JSection 41(1)

…DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-1246/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) R.G. Scientific Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT F-12, Circle-15(1) East of Kailash C.R. Building New Delhi New Delhi. AAACR1316F (Respondent) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Ved Jain, C.A Respondent by Smt. Anuja Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement 15.01.2016 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 5/12/2012 passed by Ld. CIT(A) XVII, New Delhi. 2. During the course of heari…

M/S. Abb Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Addl. CIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/BANG/2010[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Sr. Counsel

…ted that Sec.28(iv) of the Act will not apply to the facts of the present case as what the Assessee received was monetary consideration. In this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) wherein the question was as to whether waiver of loan to acquire a capital asset can be regarded as receipt chargeable to tax u/s.28(iv) of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the income which can be taxed under s. 28(iv) must not only be referable to a benefit or perquisite, but it must be arising from business. Secondly, s.…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Balaji Distilleries Ltd., Chennai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1585/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1585/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Balaji Distilleries Ltd., Income Tax, V. (Merged With United Spirits) Company Circle I(2), Bye Pass Road Poonamallee, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacb 3589 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Nangia, CITFor Respondent: Ms. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…Act also did not apply as it would be applicable only to a trading liability.” Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Tosha International Ltd. 331 ITR 440 (Del) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT 261 ITR 501 have also decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the above decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the amount of remission of principal amount on account of one time settlement relating to capital assets cannot be chargeable to tax. Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. The ground is a…