Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

262 ITR 278Supreme Court of India2003#217 most cited

What is Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income eligible for deduction under Section 80IA or 80IC must have a direct nexus with the eligible business activity of the industrial undertaking. Income merely incidental to the business, even if part of the assessee's overall business, is not considered "derived from" the eligible undertaking.

353

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT · 262 ITR 278 · Section 80IA deduction · Section 80IC deduction · income derived from · direct nexus · incidental income · eligible business activity · profits derived from industrial undertaking · statutory interpretation

Also reported as

129 Taxmann 539

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 250Section 148Section 115JBSection 147Section 14ASection 263

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)casus omissussection 80hinitial assessment yearsection 80hheligible businesssection 144badeduction under section 80iasection 80hhcsection 144asection 158bcsection 80ib

Judgments citing Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1108/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(4)Section 80I

…ss will be covered under the income derived from and not the income incidental to the actual conducts of business. The AO further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Sterling Foods reported in 237 ITR 53 and Pandian Chemical reported in 262 ITR 278 to buttress his view that only the income which has direct nexus with eligible business activity of the industrial undertaking will be eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The AO, in view of the above, held that other income such as income from bank interest, government grant, interest income tax refund, tender fee, misc. income…

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e business activity to qualify for deductions under Section 801A. In this case, the court held that the sale of import entitlements, though related to the business, was not directly derived from the industrial undertaking. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC): The Supreme Court held that interest earned on deposits with the Electricity Board, though related to the business, was not "derived from the industrial undertaking. This case is particularly relevant as it underscores that interest income, even if connected to the business, does not qualify for deductions under Section 801A. 1. Liberty Ind…

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e business activity to qualify for deductions under Section 801A. In this case, the court held that the sale of import entitlements, though related to the business, was not directly derived from the industrial undertaking. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC): The Supreme Court held that interest earned on deposits with the Electricity Board, though related to the business, was not "derived from the industrial undertaking. This case is particularly relevant as it underscores that interest income, even if connected to the business, does not qualify for deductions under Section 801A. 1. Liberty Ind…

M/S. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT-I, Lucknow

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…business activity to qualify for deductions under Section 801A. In this case, the court held that the sale of import entitlements, though related to the business, was not directly derived from the industrial undertaking. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC): The Supreme Court held that interest earned on deposits with the Electricity Board, though related to the business, was not "derived from the industrial undertaking. This case is particularly relevant as it underscores that interest income, even if connected to the business, does not qualify for deductions under Section 801A. 1. Liberty In…

Value Labs LLP, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/HYD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 229/Hyd/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Value Labs Llp, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-8(1), [Pan : Aakfv2276K] Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 10ASection 41(1)Section 56

…of the Act, sta"ng that the claimed exemp"on was deemed invalid due to the interest income being categorized under a different sec"on. learned Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Pandian Chemicals Limited, 262 ITR 278 (SC). Page 5 of 11 Value Labs LLP, Hyderabad 12. Assessee's grievance, therefore, essen"ally revolves around the classifica"on of interest earned from bank deposits as income from other sources. The core ques"on involved in this appeal is, therefore, whether this interest, derived from parking of the surplus funds in bank accounts, should be tr…

Sysmex India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. C.I.T. 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4454/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tikekar, C.A. & Shri Ashish Thakurdesai, C.A., A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 80

…be given to each word. The Hon’ble Apex court has time and again reinforced this rule of interpretation of statutes in its judgements, right from Padmasundara Rao vs State of TN 255 ITR 147(SC), Mohammad Vs CWT 224 ITR 672(SC) & Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT 262 ITR 278(SC).In view of the same since the words used in section 80IC categorically state that the provisions of sub section 5 to section 80IA shall apply to the eligible undertaking or enterprise, they have to be read as such and applied to each undertaking, meaning thereby that the profits of each eligible undertaking has to be treated as if it were the…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai vs. Romell Housing LLP, Mumbai

ITA 3935/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 253(4)Section 56(2)(x)

…g Standards provide for material events to be disclosed even if after the balance sheet date but before the approval of such results by the Board of Directors. In any case, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd, 262 ITR 278, wherein it was held that, "The rules of interpretation would come into play only if there is any doubt with regard to theexpress language used. Where the words are unequivocal, there is no scope for importing any rule of interpretation", is very pertinent and relevant. Considering that S.56(2)(x) has given prime importance to "the date of regist…

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

…sing Officer rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and proceeded to make the addition. While making addition, he relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) (SC) and Pandyan Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT (262 ITR 278) (SC) stating that the said amount is not the income derived from industrial undertaking and therefore, was to be reduced from the profit for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. 26.4. Aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the assessing officer. 27. At the time of hea…

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

…rtaking. It was observed that such an interest is distinct from interest income which is being received from Fixed Deposit. Case laws referred were CIT v. Paras Oil Extraction Ltd. [1998] 230 ITR 266/96 Taxman 234 (MP) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278/ 129 Taxman 539 (SC). 11. An another interesting feature involved to resolve this controversy is that the revenue otherwise cannot allow the claim of payment under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act because as per this section, the deduction is provided in respect of the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of busines…

Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5991/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit 697, Udyog Vihar Phase-5, Circle-23(1) Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana – 122 015. Pan: Aaccb1828N Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward 4(4), Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Phase Ii, New Delhi. Naraina Indl. Area, Delhi – 110 028. Pan: Aaccb1828N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated Nil & 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10372/17-18 & 10390/18-19, Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR &
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…Ansysco Sunrise Complex 2016 (12) TMI 1764, dated 16.12.2016 is relied. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the material on record and observe that relying the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC); Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC); and CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC), the disallowances have been sustained on the basis that these incomes cannot be held to be derived from the business activity exempted u/s 80IC of the Act. However, we are of the considered view that the components of income/deduction u/s 80IC…

Bhagwati Products Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-23(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5077/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit 697, Udyog Vihar Phase-5, Circle-23(1) Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana – 122 015. Pan: Aaccb1828N Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward 4(4), Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Phase Ii, New Delhi. Naraina Indl. Area, Delhi – 110 028. Pan: Aaccb1828N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated Nil & 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10372/17-18 & 10390/18-19, Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR &
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…Ansysco Sunrise Complex 2016 (12) TMI 1764, dated 16.12.2016 is relied. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the material on record and observe that relying the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC); Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC); and CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC), the disallowances have been sustained on the basis that these incomes cannot be held to be derived from the business activity exempted u/s 80IC of the Act. However, we are of the considered view that the components of income/deduction u/s 80IC…

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

…f packing material was to be included as per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. (245 ITR 769). 17.4 Proceeding further, Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. V/s CIT (262 ITR 278) which held that the term „derived from‟ must be understood as something which has a direct or immediate nexus with the assessee’s industrial undertaking, held that the tabulated receipts were not directly derived from export activities and therefore, the same should not form part of the eligible profits. Another plea that only net receipts shoul…

Addl CIT R G 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd ( Formerly Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. ), Mumbai

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…f packing material was to be included as per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. (245 ITR 769). 17.4 Proceeding further, Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. V/s CIT (262 ITR 278) which held that the term „derived from‟ must be understood as something which has a direct or immediate nexus with the assessee’s industrial undertaking, held that the tabulated receipts were not directly derived from export activities and therefore, the same should not form part of the eligible profits. Page No. 96 ITA NO.6832 & 6772/MUM/2010…

Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…me from bank deposits, interest on deposits with Reliance Energy and vendor balances written back. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the AO by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v/s CIT 262 ITR 278. 26. The ld. AR in this regard submitted that the interest from bank deposits to the tune of Rs.4,26,913/- is derived from the bank deposit of Rs. 28,00,000/- placed by the assessee's Goa Unit to secure a bank guarantee in favour of the Goa Electricity Board. The ld. AR further submitted that the electricity power to the Goa Unit was supplied bas…

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…me from bank deposits, interest on deposits with Reliance Energy and vendor balances written back. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the AO by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v/s CIT 262 ITR 278. 26. The ld. AR in this regard submitted that the interest from bank deposits to the tune of Rs.4,26,913/- is derived from the bank deposit of Rs. 28,00,000/- placed by the assessee's Goa Unit to secure a bank guarantee in favour of the Goa Electricity Board. The ld. AR further submitted that the electricity power to the Goa Unit was supplied bas…

Sanofi India Ltd Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…me from bank deposits, interest on deposits with Reliance Energy and vendor balances written back. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the AO by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v/s CIT 262 ITR 278. 26. The ld. AR in this regard submitted that the interest from bank deposits to the tune of Rs.4,26,913/- is derived from the bank deposit of Rs. 28,00,000/- placed by the assessee's Goa Unit to secure a bank guarantee in favour of the Goa Electricity Board. The ld. AR further submitted that the electricity power to the Goa Unit was supplied bas…

Housing Devp. Fin.Corpn. Ltd vs. The ADIT Cir. 1(1)

ITA 552/MUM/2004[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

…he definition, the term "long term finance for residential housing" and any other interpretation would defeat the object of promoting residential house. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd vs CIT 262 ITR 278 (SC) to hold that the word "derived from" has to be given a narrow meaning. The CIT(A) also relied on the findings given in the orders passed for the A.Ys 1996-97 and 1997-98 to uphold the stand taken by the Assessing Officer with regard to the various streams of income which the assessee had claimed to be part of income from long term finance fo…

DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…- -Vaporub-Others Unit INR 88,74,151/- - Whisper Unit INR 1,51,80,215/- - Whisper e-Line Unit INR 16,68,479/- Total INR 3,31,98,524/- 9.2. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sterling Foods: 237 ITR 579 (SC), the Assessing Officer concluded that the above other income could not be considered as profits derived from industrial undertaking since the effective and immediate source of the said incomes was not the industrial undertakings. Thus, the Assessing Officer reduced the Other…

Procter & Gamble Hygine & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1735/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…- -Vaporub-Others Unit INR 88,74,151/- - Whisper Unit INR 1,51,80,215/- - Whisper e-Line Unit INR 16,68,479/- Total INR 3,31,98,524/- 9.2. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sterling Foods: 237 ITR 579 (SC), the Assessing Officer concluded that the above other income could not be considered as profits derived from industrial undertaking since the effective and immediate source of the said incomes was not the industrial undertakings. Thus, the Assessing Officer reduced the Other…

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hyginene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3566/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…- -Vaporub-Others Unit INR 88,74,151/- - Whisper Unit INR 1,51,80,215/- - Whisper e-Line Unit INR 16,68,479/- Total INR 3,31,98,524/- 9.2. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sterling Foods: 237 ITR 579 (SC), the Assessing Officer concluded that the above other income could not be considered as profits derived from industrial undertaking since the effective and immediate source of the said incomes was not the industrial undertakings. Thus, the Assessing Officer reduced the Other…