Sadanand Varde v. State of Maharashtra

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

…approved by Court cannot be equated with sales, as the essential feature of contract between the parties is absent, places reliance upon the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sadanand S. Varde v. State of Maharashtra (247 ITR 609).The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in para 95 and 96 that a scheme of amalgamation has a statutory operation once it is sanctioned by a competent court and is distinct and different from a mere Grasim Industries Ltd. agreement signed by the necessary parties, even though scheme is approved by all concerned parties by consensus. Merely becaus…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

…roved by Court cannot be equated with sales, as the essential\nfeature of contract between the parties is absent, places reliance upon the\ncelebrated decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sadanand\nS. Varde v. State of Maharashtra (247 ITR 609).The Hon'ble Bombay High Court\nhas held in para 95 and 96 that a scheme of amalgamation has a statutory operation\nonce it is sanctioned by a competent court and is distinct and different from a mere\nagreement signed by the necessary parties, even though scheme is approved by all\nconcerned parties by consensus. Merely because it is so agreed u…

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

…and binding on\neveryone including the statutory authorities and the same\ncannot be challenged in any collateral proceedings.\nReliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay\nHigh Court in the case of Sadanand Varde v. State of\nMaharashtra [2001] 247 ITR 609 (Bom.). Similar view has\nalso been expressed in the below cases:\n- Keva Fragrance P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No.\n334/Mum/2020) (Mum. Trib)\n- Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 92\ntaxmann.com 85 (Kol. Trib)\n44\nITA No.2227/Mum/2024 and others\nMahadhan Agritech Limited\n46. The ld. AR submitted that commercially, it is possible\nthat good…

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…inal and binding on everyone including the statutory authorities and the same cannot be challenged in any collateral proceedings. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadanand Varde v. State of Maharashtra [2001] 247 ITR 609 (Bom.). Similar view has also been expressed in the below cases: - Keva Fragrance P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 334/Mum/2020) (Mum. Trib) - Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 85 (Kol. Trib) 46. The ld. AR submitted that commercially, it is possible that goodwill may arise on restructuring. Thus, only because goodwill has been r…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…inal and binding on everyone including the statutory authorities and the same cannot be challenged in any collateral proceedings. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadanand Varde v. State of Maharashtra [2001] 247 ITR 609 (Bom.). Similar view has also been expressed in the below cases: - Keva Fragrance P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 334/Mum/2020) (Mum. Trib) - Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 85 (Kol. Trib) 46. The ld. AR submitted that commercially, it is possible that goodwill may arise on restructuring. Thus, only because goodwill has been r…

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL)--50, MUMAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…inal and binding on everyone including the statutory authorities and the same cannot be challenged in any collateral proceedings. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadanand Varde v. State of Maharashtra [2001] 247 ITR 609 (Bom.). Similar view has also been expressed in the below cases: - Keva Fragrance P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 334/Mum/2020) (Mum. Trib) - Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 85 (Kol. Trib) 46. The ld. AR submitted that commercially, it is possible that goodwill may arise on restructuring. Thus, only because goodwill has been r…

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNWON AS SMARTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD ) ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MUMBAI-50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

…and binding on\neveryone including the statutory authorities and the same\ncannot be challenged in any collateral proceedings.\nReliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay\nHigh Court in the case of Sadanand Varde v. State of\nMaharashtra [2001] 247 ITR 609 (Bom.). Similar view has\nalso been expressed in the below cases:\n- Keva Fragrance P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No.\n334/Mum/2020) (Mum. Trib)\n- Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 92\ntaxmann.com 85 (Kol. Trib)\n\nITA No.2227/Mum/2024 and others\nMahadhan Agritech Limited\n46\n46. The ld. AR submitted that commercially, it is possible\nthat go…

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MUMBAI.50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…inal and binding on everyone including the statutory authorities and the same cannot be challenged in any collateral proceedings. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadanand Varde v. State of Maharashtra [2001] 247 ITR 609 (Bom.). Similar view has also been expressed in the below cases: - Keva Fragrance P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 334/Mum/2020) (Mum. Trib) - Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 85 (Kol. Trib) 46. The ld. AR submitted that commercially, it is possible that goodwill may arise on restructuring. Thus, only because goodwill has been r…

ACIT 12(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TELEPEFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD. ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S.INTELENET GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

…f this, the non-compliance, of section 72A as held bi/ the Commissioner (Appeals) did not hold any water.” 9. Moreover, we further find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sadanand S Varde & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in 247 ITR 609 (Bom) had categorically held that order of the Company Court sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation would be . binding and the same cannot be permitted to be challenged in a collateral proceeding. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A) allowing the claim of long term capital loss in the hands of the asse…

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

…nd the creditors acquiesce in such alteration.” 7.3. We find that the aforesaid observations of Hon‟ble Supreme Court had been followed in yet another decision by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadanand Varde vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 247 ITR 609 wherein it was held that Once a scheme becomes sanctioned by the court, it ceases to operate as a mere agreement between the parties and becomes binding on the company, the creditors and the shareholders and has statutory operation by virtue of the provisions of Section 391 of the Companies Act.” 7.4. The said judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Cou…

THE DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

…d the creditors acquiesce in such alteration.” 7.3. We find that the aforesaid observations of Hon‟ble Supreme Court had been followed in yet another decision by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadanand Varde vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 247 ITR 609 wherein it was held that Once a scheme becomes sanctioned by the court, it ceases to operate as a mere agreement between the parties and becomes binding on the company, the creditors and the shareholders and M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited has statutory operation by virtue of the provisions of Section 391 of the Companies Act.” 7.4. The said j…

KEVA FRGRANCES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 4 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

…iesce in such alteration. (underlining provided by us) 4.5.2. We find that the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sadanand Varde and Others vs State of Maharashtra reported in 247 ITR 609 (Bom) wherein it was held that : “Once a scheme becomes sanctioned by the court, it ceases to operate as a mere agreement between the parties and becomes binding on the company, the creditors and the shareholders and has statutory operation by virtue of the provisions of section 391 of the Companies Act.” The said judgement of Hon’ble Bombay Hi…

ESSAR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

…ctly abided and followed the directions of an approved court scheme. The scheme once sanctioned by the. Court has statutory legal binding. Reliance in this regard, may be placed on the jurisdictional High Court ruling of Sadanand Varde v State of Maharashtra (247 ITR 609) and Apex court ruling of Marshall &Sons (223 ITR 809). 8. Investments by way of Non-Cumulative Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) in ISL and its subsequent conversion into equity shares. 8.1 Vide, para 14 to 16 of the above captioned notice your Honour has alleged that excess shares of ISL were allotted to the FIIs. It has also…