Sulzer India Ltd. v. JCIT

42 SOT 457Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#9803 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Judgments citing Sulzer India Ltd. v. JCIT

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is

ITA 1448/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M Balaganesh(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai Mahindra Towers,Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Mahajan -ARFor Respondent: Shri A Mohan CIT-DR
Section 40ASection 40A(9)Section 92C

…21,25,12,6437- being the sum which was waived on prepayment of SICOM loan, treating the same as revenue income . The learned CIT(A) erred in not applying the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCITvs. Sulzer India Ltd. 42 SOT 457 (2010),134 TTJ 385 (Mum SB) as confirmed by the Bombay High Court vide order dated 5th December.2014 which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The contention of the Appellant that the amount in question was a capital receipt not exigible to tax be accepted. 9. Special Pension - Rs. 52,85.600/- On the facts and in the circumstances of…

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7369/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.7417/Mum/2010 & 7369/Mum/2012 Assessment Years: 2000-01 Cable Corporation of India Limited DCIT, Circle-2(1) 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Laxmi Building,6 Vs. ShoorjiVallabhdas Marg M.K.Road Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 PAN: AAACC2936J (Assessee) (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri Awungshi Gimson Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit Khatri Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Membe…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PRIMA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 is

ITA 2162/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2161 & 2162/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(2)Section 43B(1)

…sales tax liability and the net present value of the liability is not liable to be treated as remission/cessation of a liability and held it as a capital receipt. The Bombay High Court thus confirmed the decision of Spl. Bench in Sulzer India Ltd. reported in 42 SOT 457 ( Mum) (SB). 4.4 The appellant also relied on the ITAT Pune Bench decision in the case of Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. in appeal order No. ITA No.388/PUN/2012 and 1269/PUN/2010 dated 30.05.2012, for A.Y.2005-06. 4.5. I have considered carefully the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant on the issue. As the issue has been decided in fav…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PRIMA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 is

ITA 2161/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2161 & 2162/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 41(2)Section 43B(1)

…sales tax liability and the net present value of the liability is not liable to be treated as remission/cessation of a liability and held it as a capital receipt. The Bombay High Court thus confirmed the decision of Spl. Bench in Sulzer India Ltd. reported in 42 SOT 457 ( Mum) (SB). 4.4 The appellant also relied on the ITAT Pune Bench decision in the case of Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. in appeal order No. ITA No.388/PUN/2012 and 1269/PUN/2010 dated 30.05.2012, for A.Y.2005-06. 4.5. I have considered carefully the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant on the issue. As the issue has been decided in fav…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PRIMA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 998/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 997 & 998/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)Section 80I

…r 2004-05 has deleted the addition by holding as under: "We have considered the rivet submissions carefully, It was a common ground between the parties that identical issue has been adjudicated by the Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Suzler India Ltd. 42 SOT 457 (Mum) (SB), a copy of which has been placed on record. As per the Special Bench, the difference between the payment made against the future liability on account of deferred sales-tax is a capital receipt and could not be treated as a remission of cessation of liability assessable under section 41(1)(1) of the Act. As a' result thereof, the additio…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PRIMA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 997/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 997 & 998/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)Section 80I

…r 2004-05 has deleted the addition by holding as under: "We have considered the rivet submissions carefully, It was a common ground between the parties that identical issue has been adjudicated by the Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Suzler India Ltd. 42 SOT 457 (Mum) (SB), a copy of which has been placed on record. As per the Special Bench, the difference between the payment made against the future liability on account of deferred sales-tax is a capital receipt and could not be treated as a remission of cessation of liability assessable under section 41(1)(1) of the Act. As a' result thereof, the additio…

GRINDEWELL NORTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 523/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Shri N. Padmanabham
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/s. Grindwell Norton Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT-1(1), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Mumbai (Respondent) Army & Navy Building, 3rd floor, 148, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 (Appellant) PAN : AAACG8752B Assessee by : Shri M.M. Golvala & Shri Akram Khan Revenue by : Shri N. Padmanabham Date of Hearing : 23/08/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2016 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-15, Mumbai dated…

GRINDWELL NORTON LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.COMM.OF INCOME TAX-1(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5800/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)(a)Section 14ASection 28Section 32Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,G ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Grindwell Norton Ltd., Addl. CIT 1(1) Kalyaniwall & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, 5th बनाम/ Army & Navy Building, 3rd Floor, Vs. Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAACG8725B Assessment Year: 2008-09 Grindwell Norton Ltd., Addl. CIT 1(1) Kalyaniwall & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, 5th बनाम/ Army…

GRINDWELL NORTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 528/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)(a)Section 14ASection 28Section 32Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,G ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Grindwell Norton Ltd., Addl. CIT 1(1) Kalyaniwall & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, 5th बनाम/ Army & Navy Building, 3rd Floor, Vs. Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAACG8725B Assessment Year: 2008-09 Grindwell Norton Ltd., Addl. CIT 1(1) Kalyaniwall & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, 5th बनाम/ Army…

GABRIEL INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C..I.T. -5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7560/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh S Athavale
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ies agreed that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07, wherein the Tribunal following the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of Suzler India Ltd, reported in 42 SOT 457 allowed this issue. Further, this decision of the Special Bench has now been approved by the Hon’ble High Court in a very detailed judgment vide order dated 5th December, 2014. 3. Before us, the Ld DR, though admitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, however the revenue wish to raise revised / additional ground…

ADDL CIT 5(1), MUMBAI vs. GABRIEL INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4985/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh S Athavale
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ies agreed that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07, wherein the Tribunal following the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of Suzler India Ltd, reported in 42 SOT 457 allowed this issue. Further, this decision of the Special Bench has now been approved by the Hon’ble High Court in a very detailed judgment vide order dated 5th December, 2014. 3. Before us, the Ld DR, though admitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, however the revenue wish to raise revised / additional ground…

Sulzer India Ltd. v. JCIT (42 SOT 457) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax