DCIT - 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PFIZER LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation to the assessee with respect to the Thane plant for both the years. Accordingly, ground numbers 6 to 8 of the appeal of the assessee for Ay 2015-16 and Ground no 3 for AY 2016-17 are allowed. 031. For assessment year 2015 – 16, Ground number 9-13 are with respect to the disallowance of expenses related

PFIZER LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation to the assessee with respect to the Thane plant for both the years. Accordingly, ground numbers 6 to 8 of the appeal of the assessee for Ay 2015-16 and Ground no 3 for AY 2016-17 are allowed. 031. For assessment year 2015 – 16, Ground number 9-13 are with respect to the disallowance of expenses related

PFIZER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation to the assessee with respect to the Thane plant for both the years. Accordingly, ground numbers 6 to 8 of the appeal of the assessee for Ay 2015-16 and Ground no 3 for AY 2016-17 are allowed. 031. For assessment year 2015 – 16, Ground number 9-13 are with respect to the disallowance of expenses related

THE ACIT - 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PFIZER LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the ld AO for assessment year

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

depreciation to the assessee with respect to the Thane plant for both the years. Accordingly, ground numbers 6 to 8 of the appeal of the assessee for Ay 2015-16 and Ground no 3 for AY 2016-17 are allowed. 031. For assessment year 2015 – 16, Ground number 9-13 are with respect to the disallowance of expenses related

EVEREST INDUSTIRES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

section shall have application only in a case where any asset is acquired in any previous year from a country outside India for the purposes of 30 Everest Industries Limited his business or profession. If the assets were acquired in India, in our view, the provisions of sec. 43A shall not have application. 54. In the instant case

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section, it is apparent that the definition of Demerger in Act, 1961, would be satisfied if the undertaking that is being demerged is hived off as a going concern, that means, if it constitutes a business activity capable of being run independently for a foreseeable future. To ensure that it is a going concern, the Court while sanctioning a Scheme

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Section, it is apparent that the definition of Demerger in Act, 1961, would be satisfied if the undertaking that is being demerged is hived off as a going concern, that means, if it constitutes a business activity capable of being run independently for a foreseeable future. To ensure that it is a going concern, the Court while sanctioning a Scheme

TATVA GLOABAL ENVIRONMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumartatva Global Environment Ltd Vs Ito-9(3)(3), (Now Known As Tatva Global Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Environment Pvt Ltd) Mumbai Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt Dcit, Cent.Cir.6(3), Vs Tatva Global Environment Ltd Mumbai (Now Known As Tatva Global Environment Pvt Ltd) Uniphos House, C D Marg, Opp Madhu Park, Khar (W) Mumbai 400 052 Pan : Aaics1718A Appellant Respondednt

115O of the Act; 1.5 Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that disallowance under section 14A ought to be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income

BHARAT PRTROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent. The view of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported as 220 ITR 408. 11.1 In the case of CIT vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd., 36 ITR 580 (Bom), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court explained the meaning of word “installed” as occurring in section

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, CIRCLR-2,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent. The view of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported as 220 ITR 408. 11.1 In the case of CIT vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd., 36 ITR 580 (Bom), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court explained the meaning of word “installed” as occurring in section

DCIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BIOSTACH INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

Section 43(1) is attracted only when the object of the scheme is to subsidise the cost of an asset and not otherwise. If the object of the scheme is to accelerate industrial development of the state, then the case is not caught with in the mandate of Explanation 10. In fact, to deal with such a situation, the Finance

BIOSTADT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

Section 43(1) is attracted only when the object of the scheme is to subsidise the cost of an asset and not otherwise. If the object of the scheme is to accelerate industrial development of the state, then the case is not caught with in the mandate of Explanation 10. In fact, to deal with such a situation, the Finance

PR. CIT CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI vs. BHARAT PRTROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any previous year.(emphasis supplied by us) 13. Sub-Section (1A) of Section 32AC, which is applicable to the relevant AY 2016-17 in question, provides that only those new assets which are acquired and installed on or before the 31st

CLSA INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Clsa India Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit Ltu 29Th Floor, Centre 1 World Trade Formerly Known As Clsa India Ltd. Vs. 8/F Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Centre, Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2262 K (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarpekar, Shri Paras Savla : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Sr. Ar & Respondent By Shri A. K. Ambastha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024

section 115O of the Act. 10. On perusal of the rival contentions, it is observed that the said issue has been decided against the assessee by the Special Bench decision in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Total Oil India (P.) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 332 (Mum)(Trib)(SB) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

FUTURE CAPITAL HOLDINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Capital First Ltd. Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) M/S. Capital First Ltd. (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent

115O(1) of additional income tax on profits declared, distributed or paid is a charge on a component of the profits of the company. The company is chargeable to tax on its profits as a district taxable entity and it pays tax in discharge of its own liability and not on behalf of or as an agent for its shareholders

ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI vs. FUTURE CAPITAL HOLDINGS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Capital First Ltd. Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent Add. Cit, Range – 8(1) M/S. Capital First Ltd. (Formerly Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan India Bulls Finance Centre M.K. Road Vs. Tower 2, 15Th Floor, Senapati Mumbai 400020 Bapat Marg, Elphinston (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aacck6863C Appellant Respondent

115O(1) of additional income tax on profits declared, distributed or paid is a charge on a component of the profits of the company. The company is chargeable to tax on its profits as a district taxable entity and it pays tax in discharge of its own liability and not on behalf of or as an agent for its shareholders

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

115O of the Act, having regard to the beneficial rate as per the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for dividends paid to non-resident shareholders, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the 10 ITA NO. 655 & 749/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Asian Paints Ltd., Coordinate Bench in the preceding

M/S. FORBES GOKAK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE JCIT OSD RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosai, Jm Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Income Tax, Osd, Range Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 1 (1), Mumbai Pan: Aaacf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaccf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent

115O of the Act, it is incorrect to hold that dividend is tax-free and hence the question of application of section 14A cannot arise. 4. Without prejudice to the above, we submit that profits on sale of shares are in any event taxable and hence application of section 14A to cases of purchase of shares is misapplication