M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 87,61,130 representing part of the payment made for encashment of leave. He ought not to have

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

40A(2)(a)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 87,61,130 representing part of the payment made for encashment of leave. He ought not to have

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital of the subsidiary company (except in cases where it controls the composition of the board of directors without holding majority of the shares). While the holding company is a member of its subsidiary company, the subsidiary company is not a member of the holding company. As, the subsidiary company was not a member of the assessee subclause

ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital of the subsidiary company (except in cases where it controls the composition of the board of directors without holding majority of the shares). While the holding company is a member of its subsidiary company, the subsidiary company is not a member of the holding company. As, the subsidiary company was not a member of the assessee subclause

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital of the subsidiary company (except in cases where it controls the composition of the board of directors without holding majority of the shares). While the holding company is a member of its subsidiary company, the subsidiary company is not a member of the holding company. As, the subsidiary company was not a member of the assessee subclause

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

40A(3) of the Act were\nintroduced to counter evasion of tax by way of claiming expenditure which is\nincurred in cash, wherein the identity of the payee and reasonableness of the\npayment is unclear. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the\nassessee is a credit co-operative society and received the money in the normal\ncourse

EASTERN CARGO CARRIERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Eastern Cargo Carriers (India) The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., Department, Vs. Unit No. 26, Adarsh Ind. Estates, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400099. Pan No. Aaace 1520 E Appellant Respondent

40A(2) of the Act and both were were taxed at same tax rate, then entire exercise then entire exercise of making addition of making addition was a revenue neutral exercise. The relevant was a revenue neutral exercise. The relevant part of the Circular (supra) cited by the part of the Circular (supra) cited by the assessee is repro

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

Gains. 3.1.7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in making wrong references to section 47(iv), (v) and (vid) without M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd. appreciating that these sections have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and further that these

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

section 40A(2)(b) was to be set aside Thus, keeping in view the decision of Bombay High Court (supra) and when no contrary fact or law is brought to our notice, we affirm the finding of Id CIT(A). In the result the Ground No. 4 is dismissed.” Thus, respectfully following the same, the addition is deleted. This ground

ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

section 40A(2)(b) was to be set aside Thus, keeping in view the decision of Bombay High Court (supra) and when no contrary fact or law is brought to our notice, we affirm the finding of Id CIT(A). In the result the Ground No. 4 is dismissed.” Thus, respectfully following the same, the addition is deleted. This ground

ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI vs. MORGAN STANLEY INDIA CO P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

section 40A(2)(b) was to be set aside Thus, keeping in view the decision of Bombay High Court (supra) and when no contrary fact or law is brought to our notice, we affirm the finding of Id CIT(A). In the result the Ground No. 4 is dismissed.” Thus, respectfully following the same, the addition is deleted. This ground