PCIT v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

439 ITR 761High Court2021#25138 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263 Section 32 Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 4(3)(vii)

Issues it is cited on

mat credit section 115jb(2)section 36(1)(vii)book profits tnmm section 115j section 115jb section 36(1)section 115 section 11 transfer company

Judgments citing PCIT v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

LUPIN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, vs. Room No. 612, 6th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, PAN : AAACL1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30-09-2025 O R…

SCHINDLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE 15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 7311/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…would not be hit by clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB of the Act and, therefore, cannot be added while computing the book profits. Further, the assessee wishes to place reliance on the decision in the case of Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. 439 ITR 761 (Guj.). It was accordinglysubmitted that in view of theaforesaid settled position, the provision for bad and doubtful debts in the instant case amounts to an actual write off and the same cannot be added under clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB of the Act and accordingly, the impugned addition so made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,09,72…

SCHINDLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIR-15(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7326/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…would not be hit by clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB of the Act and, therefore, cannot be added while computing the book profits. Further, the assessee wishes to place reliance on the decision in the case of Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. 439 ITR 761 (Guj.). It was accordinglysubmitted that in view of theaforesaid settled position, the provision for bad and doubtful debts in the instant case 6 ITA Nos.7326/Mum/2017 &7311/Mum/2018 amounts to an actual write off and the same cannot be added under clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB of the Act and accordingly, the impugned addition so…