P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (219 CTR 202)

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…r such purpose could not be regarded as capital expenditure and was only a revenue expenditure" I.T.A Nos.712 & 741 /Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 45 Sun Pharma Labs. Ltd. vs. DCIT 23.4.4. The decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. [2008] 219 CTR 202 (Madras) is more akin to the facts of the case as the management consultant involved in both these cases is the same third party namely Mckinsey. ……………. 23.4.5. In light of the above substantiated services received by the Appellant from McKinsey, it is clear beyond doubts that the same had been availed for the purposes of the Appellant's business…

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…r such purpose could not be regarded as capital expenditure and was only a revenue expenditure" I.T.A Nos.712 & 741 /Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 45 Sun Pharma Labs. Ltd. vs. DCIT 23.4.4. The decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. [2008] 219 CTR 202 (Madras) is more akin to the facts of the case as the management consultant involved in both these cases is the same third party namely Mckinsey. ……………. 23.4.5. In light of the above substantiated services received by the Appellant from McKinsey, it is clear beyond doubts that the same had been availed for the purposes of the Appellant's business…

INDIA INDEX SERVICES & PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 6913/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6913/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) बनधम/ M/S. India Index Services Acit-14(2)(2) Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Floor & Products Ltd. Vs. Room No.432, M.K. Plot No. C-1, Block G, Road, Mumbai-400020. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci5633A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sukh Sagar Syal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.09.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Disallowing Rs.74,43,942/- Being Research & Administration Fee Incurred For Strategic Business Planning By Treating The Same As Capital In Nature & The Reasons Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made Thereunder. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Modify The Above Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…that is revenue in nature and is liable to be allowed. In support of his contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision (i) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 124 ITR 1 (SC), (ii) CIT Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Madras High Court), (iii) CIT Vs. Praga Tools Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 282, (iv) DCIT Vs. Reddiff.com India Ltd. 141 TTJ 679 (Mum), (v) Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 112 TTJ 94 (Chandigarh) & CIT Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.(1990) 182 ITR 62. On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Departmen…

RALLIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed,

ITA 3465/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rallis India Ltd. Cit -3, Mumbai बनाम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit -3(3)(1), Mumbai M/S Rallis India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Mumbai – 400 020. Point, Mumbai – 400 021. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N

Section 28

…IT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad)‟ CIT V/s JCT Electronics Ltd (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT V/s Abbott Laboratories (I) P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT V/s Carborandum Universal Ltd (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the AO is directed to treat the expenditure on account of legal and professional fees amounting to Rs.1,06,52,800/-” 22. The ld. DR vehemently submitted before us that the order of ld. CIT(A) is apparently wrong in deleting the addition of expenses of capital nature incurred on the project to increase efficiency of business operations whic…

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4316/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…IT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad)‟ CIT V/s JCT Electronics Ltd (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT V/s Abbott Laboratories (I) P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT V/s Carborandum Universal Ltd (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the AO is directed to treat the expenditure on account of legal and professional fees amounting to Rs.1,06,52,800/- “ 22. The ld. DR vehemently submitted before us that the order of ld.CIT(A) is apparently wrong in deleting the addition of expenses of capital nature incurred on the project to increase efficiency of business operations whi…

RALLIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4234/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…IT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad)‟ CIT V/s JCT Electronics Ltd (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT V/s Abbott Laboratories (I) P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT V/s Carborandum Universal Ltd (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the AO is directed to treat the expenditure on account of legal and professional fees amounting to Rs.1,06,52,800/- “ 22. The ld. DR vehemently submitted before us that the order of ld.CIT(A) is apparently wrong in deleting the addition of expenses of capital nature incurred on the project to increase efficiency of business operations whi…

DCIT CIR 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1724/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Rallies India Ltd. Circle-3(3)(1), Room No-609, 6Th Floor 156/157, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Bhavan,Nariman Point Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 Pan Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri Anu K. Agarwal, Addl.Cit Revenue By Assessee By .. Shri Harmuzt Tamshedji, Ar .. Date Of Hearing 15-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 15-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 10(34)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242)ITR 317) (Mad); CIT v. JCT Electronics Ltd. (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT v. Abbott Laboratories (I) P. Ltd. (202 ITR 819) (Born); EL Forge Ltd. v. DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT U. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (2003) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the A0 is directed to treat the expenditure legal and professional fees amounting to Rs.2,71,54,486/-.” 6. We find that the CIT (A) has not discussed the facts of the case and not analysis the issue and decided the issue by a non-speaking order. Hence, we restore this issue back to the file of the CIT (A) for afresh adjudication after allo…

P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd.

Judgments citing P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd.