Phillips India Ltd. v. CIT, 21 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia

M/S HINDUSTAN LIVER LTD. vs. THE ADDLCIR 1(1),

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…s this amalgamation has not only brought benefit of enduring nature of the company, it has made the addition to the assessee’s scope of business venture. He further relied upon Singlo (I) Tea Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, 68 Taxman 302 (Cal.) and Godfery Philips v/s CIT, 206 ITR 23 (Bom.). Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 29. Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee submitted that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of personal products and special chemicals. Ponds India Ltd. was also engaged in similar type of bus…

HIRANANDANI AKRUTI JV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

…34,938 (Bom)]. (21) in connection with amalgamation of company M with the assessee-company which resulted in a radical alteration in the framework of the business of the as-sessee-company [Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. 21 Hiranandani Akruti JV CIT, (1994) 206 ITR 23,35 (Bom)]. Also see, Lalitmani Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1997) Tax LR 543,544 (Born). (22) for obtaining advice of solicitors in regard to dilution of shareholding in pursuance of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, as the expenditure resulted in augmentation of the capital base of the assessee-company [CIT v. Hayward Waldia Ref…

DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. WADHWA CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ,‘ जी’’,म ुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘G’ MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT-19(3) M/s. Wadhwa Constructions बनाम/ Room No.305, 3rd Floor, 425/A, Vasukamal, Piramal Chambers, 14th Road, Bandra (West) Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 012 ( याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAAFW6792M याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Ms. Anupama Singla – DR यनधाारय…

NAVINCHANDRA N . MAJITHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…(Bom)]. (21) in connection with amalgamation of company M with the assessee-company which resulted in a radical alteration in the framework of the business of the as-sessee-company [Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. CIT, 21 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia (1994) 206 ITR 23,35 (Bom)]. Also see, Lalitmani Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1997) Tax LR 543,544 (Born). (22) for obtaining advice of solicitors in regard to dilution of shareholding in pursuance of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, as the expenditure resulted in augmentation of the capital base of the assessee-company [CIT v. Hayward Waldia Ref…