How many judgments cite Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT (124 TTJ 771), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 143(3A), Section 144B, Section 144C(13), Section 2(24)(xviii).

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT

124 TTJ 771Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#3539 most cited

What is Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Benefit or income foregone, such as a lesser amount of share premium received on share issuance, cannot be considered an expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act as it does not represent an actual loss or incurred liability.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT · 124 TTJ 771 · ITAT 2009 · section 37 · expenditure · income foregone · share premium · contingent liability · business income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 143(3A)Section 144B Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 2(42C)Section 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 2(15a)section 17(2)(iiia)section 17(2)section 40(a)(ii)explanation to section 37 block of assets profits and gains of business or profession computer software section 37(1)section 17 put to use revenue expenditure

Judgments citing Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…t define income except by way of adding artificial categories, it is to be decided cases that one must go in search of light." (Emphasis supplied) In the context of SAP discount, the Jurisdictional Tribunal - in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (2009) 124 TTJ 771 (Del) held ESOP discount to be capital and not a allowable/ deductible business expenditure. The Delhi Tribunal placed it reliance on the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Lowry v Consolidated African Selection Trust Ltd. (1940) 8 ITR 88 (Supp) and held it to be capital. This decision was upheld by the Mumbai Tribunal. Thus the argume…

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

M/S. Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of our directions contained in the preceding

ITA 2282/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…reproduced here in under for a ready reference: “A. Ground no. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 2.1 & 2.2 - The following decisions may kindly be considered in respect of these grounds: Hon'ble Delhi High Court of India in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 124 TTJ 771 has held as under: The assessee was to issue shares of face value of Rs. 10 by receiving a sum of Rs. 595 per share from its employees. Thus, the assessee was entitled to receive Rs. 585 towards premium on issue of shares. The market price at Rs. 738.95 per share would have resulted in realization of higher share premium. The assessee had not acc…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…-12-2007 has clearly provided that where ESOPs are purchased by the Company, and then issued to the employees then the same is allowed; else it is not an expenditure. For thisw proposition, the AO relied upon the decision of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs ACIT [124 TTJ 771 (2009)(Delhi Tribunal). Further, in giving its judgment, the Delhi Tribunal held that the issue of shares at below market price does not result into incurring any expenditure; rather it results into short receipt of share premium which the assessee was otherwise entitled to. The receipt of share premium is not taxable and hence any short receipt…

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 409/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri JD Mistri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 409/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Larsen & Toubro Infotech Pr. Commissioner of Income Limited Tax-2, Room No. 344, 3 rd Taxation Dept., L&T House, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd Floor, N.M. Marg, Ballard M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Estate, Mumbai-400 001 020 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAACL1681…

M/S. Religare Wealth Management Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1780/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Religare Wealth Vs. Dcit, Management Ltd., Circle-21(1), C.R. Building, D3, P3B, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan :Aadcr5677C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Tejasvi Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…tten off as loss incidental to business under section 28 of the Act. 1.4 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in following decision of the co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. AC1T: 124 TTJ 771, and thereby not following the principle/ ratio laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT: 155 TTJ 649, holding that the law laid down by Special Bench does not have any precedential value. 2. That the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the above disallowance by fol…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Info Edge India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3837/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 14A

…nd that the same was challenged before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 6.3.2 The Ld. AO has held such expenses as capital in nature and not as actual expenditure and relying upon the decision in the case of Addl. CIT Vs Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. reported in 124 TTJ 771 (Del) had disallowed these expenses. The Hon'ble ITAT (Spl. Bench), Bangalore, subsequently, in the case of Biocon Ltd. {2013} 35 taxmann.com 335 (Bang)(SB) had comprehensively over viewed the legal position in the light of accounting and taxation principles and have disagreed with the views expressed by the Division Bench of Ranbaxy Laboratories…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Solarwinds India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 428/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 428/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Solarwinds India Private Limited, Corporate Circle -6(2), Vs. No. 16, Iii Floor, Rms Apartment, Aayakarbhavan, New Block, No. 12, Gopalakrishna Street, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Pondy Bazaar, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aacct 4499H] ("#यथ%/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar. R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. D. Rohini, JCIT

Section 263

…low such expenses for the reason that it is only notional and also a capital loss, the assessee relied on the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of PVP Ventures Ltd. The AO cited the ITAT decisions in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs ACIT (124 TTJ 771) (Delhi) and M/s. VIP Industries Ltd. 2010 ITL 654 (Mum) and the Revenue’s appeal against the Hon’ble High Court in the case of PVP Ventures Ltd and held that without prejudice to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court and in order to keep the issue alive, he disallowed the assessee’s claim. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before th…

Jyoti Structures Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5367/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jyoti Structures Ltd. Dcit Central Circle- Valecha Chambers, 6Th 7(2), Mumbai, Room Vs. Floor, New Link Road, No. 655, 6Th Floor, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400053. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj2499R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajit K. Srivastava, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajit K. Srivastava, DR

Section 115WSection 143(3)Section 17(2)(iii)

…rds require the taxpayer to account for short receipt of share premium as employee compensation expenditure, the allowability of the expenditure should be determined as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. Relying on the decision Ranbaxy Laboratories v. ACIT 124 TTJ 771 (2009), M/s VIP Industries v. DCIT, CC-32 (ITAT Mumbai) and Lowry (Inspector of taxes) v. Consolidate African Selection Trust Ltd. (1940) 8 ITR (suppl) 88 (HL), the AO disallowed claim of expenses of Rs.1,62,49,300/-incurred on ESOP. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appe…

M/S. Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Religare Securities Ltd, Vs. Dcit, D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, Circle-21(1), New Delhi-110017 Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 28Section 37(1)

…Religare Securities Ltd V DCIT , Circle -21(1) New Delhi AY 2010-11 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Religare Securities Ltd, Vs. DCIT, D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, Circle-21(1), New Delhi-110017 CR Building, New Delhi PAN:AAACF1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Ms. Tejasvi Jain, CA Revenue by: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/08/2017 Date of pronouncement 09/10/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is…

Korn Ferry International P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) Cir 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 7367/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hares under ESOP scheme is going to reduce the reserve and not allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 6 Korn Ferry d. The AO relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (124 TTJ 771). He observed that decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Ranbaxy is directly applicable in the Assessee Company’s case and the same squarely covers the issue under consideration against the Assessee Company and in favour of the Revenue. e. 'Expenditure' is what is 'paid out’ and is something which has gone irretrievably. A benefit or inc…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Korn Ferry International P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7139/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Addl Cirt G 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई ‘ए’ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S.Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं /ITA No.3178/M/2012, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year 2008-09 वष" DCIT-LTU, Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (Formerly World Trade Centre, 28th Floor, known as Indian Rayon and Industries Limited)A4, Aditya Birla Centre, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg,Worli, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400 030. PAN:AACI 1747 H आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसं…