Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

…an interpretation cannot be accepted. (b) The AO's treatment of taxing the internal transfer is against the principle of taxation that a person cannot make a profit from itself, a principle established by the Supreme- Court in Kiabhai Premchand v CIT [19531 24 ITR 506 and since followed in a number of decisions including in Betts Hartley Huett & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 116 ITR 425 (Cal) where the Court observed that debiting or crediting one account does not alter the legal position that no person can enter into a contract with oneself. Since in the present case, gain/loss is computed on account of transfer of funds f…

Ashok Apparels P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Cen. Cir.47, Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…hould be applied, whether on the date of conversion or the date of purchase as stock in trade. Both the above issues have been deliberated by various courts over the years. The guiding principle has been laid out by the cases of Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT (24 ITR 256) (SC) & CIT v. Dhanuka & Sons (124 ITR 24) (Cal), where it has been stated that even if the stock in trade to be valued at cost at for the purpose of calculation of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Relying on the Another leading case on the point is Keshavaji Karsondas Vs. CIT (207 ITR 737) where it was categorically held that what is relevan…

Phl Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Cir.8(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5970/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Pizi Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit , Circle-8(2) Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road (Formerly Known As Phl Pharma Pvt. Ltd.) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Lower Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaccn 5346 B आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6084/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 वष" Dcit , Circle-8(2) Pizi Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Phl Pharma Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 013. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:S/Shri M. Dayasagar-Cit-Dr & Vijay Kumar-Dr Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.07.2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 27/07/2012,Of The Cit(A)-17,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee- Company,Engaged In The Business Of Consultancy & Detailing Services,Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/09/2008,Declaring A Loss Of Rs.34.73 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 27/12/2010,U/S.143(3) Of The Act,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Loss Of Rs. 10,00,82,110/-.

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं पवन"सह,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Pawan Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5970/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" PIZI Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. DCIT , Circle-8(2) Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd floor, M.K. Road (formerly known as PHL Pharma Pvt. Ltd.) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,…

Ashok Apparels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…hould be applied, whether on the date of conversion or the date of purchase as stock in trade. Both the above issues have been deliberated by various courts over the years. The guiding principle has been laid out by the cases of Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT (24 ITR 256) (SC) & CIT v. Dhanuka & Sons (124 ITR 24) (Cal), where it has been stated that even if the stock in trade to be valued at cost at for the purpose of calculation of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Relying on the Another leading case on the point is Keshavaji Karsondas Vs. CIT (207 ITR 737) where it was categorically held that what is relevan…

Ashok Apparels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…hould be applied, whether on the date of conversion or the date of purchase as stock in trade. Both the above issues have been deliberated by various courts over the years. The guiding principle has been laid out by the cases of Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT (24 ITR 256) (SC) & CIT v. Dhanuka & Sons (124 ITR 24) (Cal), where it has been stated that even if the stock in trade to be valued at cost at for the purpose of calculation of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Relying on the Another leading case on the point is Keshavaji Karsondas Vs. CIT (207 ITR 737) where it was categorically held that what is relevan…

Ashok Apparels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…hould be applied, whether on the date of conversion or the date of purchase as stock in trade. Both the above issues have been deliberated by various courts over the years. The guiding principle has been laid out by the cases of Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT (24 ITR 256) (SC) & CIT v. Dhanuka & Sons (124 ITR 24) (Cal), where it has been stated that even if the stock in trade to be valued at cost at for the purpose of calculation of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Relying on the Another leading case on the point is Keshavaji Karsondas Vs. CIT (207 ITR 737) where it was categorically held that what is relevan…

Bnp Paribas Sa, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It)-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

…espite specific provision to that effect in article 7(3)(b), is not treated as taxable on the basis that interest credit in this regard is to be taxed on the basis of logic flowing from judicial precedents in the cases of CIT Vs Sir Kikabhai Premchand [(1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC)] and Betts Hartley Huett & Co Ltd Vs CIT [(1979) 116 ITR 425 (Cal)] and on the basis that the observations made in the CIT Vs Hyundai Industries Co Ltd [(2007) 291 ITR 482 (SC)] will not be apply to this situation, while interest paid to GE is held to be deductible in the light of the provisions of article 7(3)(b) being applied on the interes…

Bnp Paribas Sa, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

…was payment to self, which did not give rise to any income as per the Income-tax Act. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CT (Central) 24 ITR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the in…

Bnp Paribas Sa, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) RG 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

…was payment to self, which did not give rise to any income as per the Income-tax Act. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CT (Central) 24 ITR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the in…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Jogani & Dialani Land Developers & Builders, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…the nature of assets depending upon its intention. It has also averred that the right of the appellant to treat an asset and hold it as an investment is undisputed and is approved by various courts including in the following cases:- i) Sir Kikabhai Premchand, 24 ITR 506 (SC) - In the said case, The assessee, a dealer in bullion and shares had withdrawn a part of the bullion and shares out of the stock in trade for being held as capital asset. It was held that the assessee was entitled to convert an asset which was originally held as stock-in-trade into an investment. Page 5 of 12 ITA no.337/Mum./2014 6 (Assess…