ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

23 March 2024 passed by the Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh ('CIT(A)'), under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), disposing of appeal against intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 9 March 2021. The following grounds of appeal are alternate and without prejudice to one another: 1. Ground No 1

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

23 - (ITA No. 6702/Mum/2025)\nGround No. I - Disallowance of employees' contribution to\nProvident Fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting\nto Rs. 54,93,734/-\n64. During the processing of the return of income under section\n143(1) of the Act, an adjustment was proposed in respect of\nemployees' contribution to Provident Fund amounting

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

23 and 2023–24. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G in respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

23 and 2023–24. In the\ncourse of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer\nexamined the allowability of deduction claimed under section 80G\nin respect of CSR related payments, employees' contribution to\nprovident fund under section 36(1)(va), disallowance under\nsection 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of\ncapital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 28 of the Act, clarifies that receipts for transfer of rights to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business, which are chargeable to tax under the head capital gain would not be taxable as profits and gains of business. Thus, the difference between the sale consideration and true value of shares

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MONSANTO INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

va) of the Act. 9. The next aspect of the dispute is as to whether such capital gain is a long term capital gain or short term capital gain. As per section 2(29A) of the Act, long term capital asset means a capital asset which is not a ‘short term capital asset. Section 2(42A) of the Act further

MONSANTO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

va) of the Act. 9. The next aspect of the dispute is as to whether such capital gain is a long term capital gain or short term capital gain. As per section 2(29A) of the Act, long term capital asset means a capital asset which is not a ‘short term capital asset. Section 2(42A) of the Act further

RAVI KANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

23''' October, 1996 to the developer / builder i.e. before the due date for filing of return of Income under Section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 313' October, 1996. (d) On 1s' November, 1996 the petitioner paid to the developer a further installment of Rs.15,00,000/- for purchase of flat pursuant to the agreement dated 16111July

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

23. On merits it is noticed that in assessee's case the Employees’ contributions for Provident Fund and ESI has been deposited after the due date, as prescribed in the respective statutes, which resulted into making the disallowance/addition of Rs. 27,58,890/- u/s. 36(1) (va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

gains have\nbeen assessed to the maximum marginal rate and even if considered as business income,\nthe tax effect would be the same. Consequently, there could be no reasonable basis to\nhave a belief that there is any escapement of Income. [Para 8]\nIn the circumstances, the impugned notice issued under section 148 as well as the\nimpugned order rejecting

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

va) in respect of LWF amounting\nto Rs. 31,812/- be deleted and the AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 16, 16,236/-\nu/s. 43B of the Act.\n5. without prejudice to the above, such adjustment / disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VOLTAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

23. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited employees’ contribution to ESIC within the permissible grace period and before the due date of filing of return for the present assessment year. The Assessing Officer held that as the payments were made after the due date the same should be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

capital gains tax as per the provisions of section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the assessee section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the cannot be denied the benefit of higher cost by relying on the sixth cannot be denied the benefit

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

23) bonds, we note that this\nissue has also been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's\nown case (supra). The relevant observations and findings arrived at by\nCo-ordinate Bench in this respect is extracted below:\n“50. The CIT(A), while adjudicating the issue of exemption under section 10(33)\nhas directed

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains as claimed by the assessee” and as such provisions contained under section 28(ii)(c) read with section 28(va)(a) of the Act are attracted. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.92,76,62,688/- as business income. Consequently ground No.1 is determined against the assessee. Ground No.2 39. Undisputedly the assessee

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains as claimed by the assessee” and as such provisions contained under section 28(ii)(c) read with section 28(va)(a) of the Act are attracted. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.92,76,62,688/- as business income. Consequently ground No.1 is determined against the assessee. Ground No.2 39. Undisputedly the assessee

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

23) bonds, we note that this\nissue has also been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's\nown case (supra). The relevant observations and findings arrived at by\nCo-ordinate Bench in this respect is extracted below:\n“50. The CIT(A), while adjudicating the issue of exemption under section 10(33)\nhas directed

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

23) bonds, we note that this\nissue has also been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's\nown case (supra). The relevant observations and findings arrived at by\nCo-ordinate Bench in this respect is extracted below:\n“50. The CIT(A), while adjudicating the issue of exemption under section 10(33)\nhas directed