ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation adjustment thus made in the assessment order. Ground No.1(a) of assessee’s appeal stands allowed whereas Ground No.1(b) has been rendered infructuous.” 42 Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in assessee’s case for the preceding assessment years are respectfully followed, accordingly, ground raised No.2 raised

SERVICOS DE PETROLEO CONSTELLATION SA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt Renu Jauhri, Am Servicos De Petroleo Constellation Sa Dcit(International Taxation), India Project Office: Circle-4(2)(1) Unit No. 1803 To 1808, 18Th Floor, Mumbai B-Wing, Business Park, Vs. Veer Savarkar Road, Part Site, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079

44D or 2[section 44DA or] section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— (a) the amount paid or payable3 (whether in or out of India) to the assessee

DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE BERRY TRADING CO P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation or capital expenditure on scientific research, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 shall apply in relation to speculation business as they apply in relation to any other business. (4) No loss shall be carried forward under this section for more than four assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed

THE ACIT CC-35 vs. M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

44D of the Act, is not included in the Profits of business as computed under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”, 90% of such quantum of receipts cannot be reduced as per clause (i) of Explanation (baa) of section 80HHC of the Act, from profits of the business. So we find that the said amount is adjusted

ACIT C.C.- 35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO INDSUTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

44D of the Act, is not included in the Profits of business as computed under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”, 90% of such quantum of receipts cannot be reduced as per clause (i) of Explanation (baa) of section 80HHC of the Act, from profits of the business. So we find that the said amount is adjusted

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. - 35, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

44D of the Act, is not included in the Profits of business as computed under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”, 90% of such quantum of receipts cannot be reduced as per clause (i) of Explanation (baa) of section 80HHC of the Act, from profits of the business. So we find that the said amount is adjusted

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE ACIT CC-35,

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

44D of the Act, is not included in the Profits of business as computed under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”, 90% of such quantum of receipts cannot be reduced as per clause (i) of Explanation (baa) of section 80HHC of the Act, from profits of the business. So we find that the said amount is adjusted

ACIT C.C. 35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO FOODS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

44D of the Act, is not included in the Profits of business as computed under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”, 90% of such quantum of receipts cannot be reduced as per clause (i) of Explanation (baa) of section 80HHC of the Act, from profits of the business. So we find that the said amount is adjusted

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN. CIR. - 35, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal bearing ITA No

44D of the Act, is not included in the Profits of business as computed\nunder the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”, 90% of such quantum\nof receipts cannot be reduced as per clause (i) of Explanation (baa) of section\n80HHC of the Act, from profits of the business. So we find that the said amount is\nadjusted

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation.\nITA No.1041 & 929/Mum/2018 & CO No.142/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2004-05) 5\nInterest under section 234D\n20. erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant that interest under section\n234D for the AY 2001-02 paid during the year ought to be allowed as a\ndeduction u/s 37(1).\nInterest under section 234C.\n21. erred in charging interest under Sec. 234C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation.\nITA No.1041 & 929/Mum/2018 & CO No.142/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2004-05) 5\nInterest under section 234D\n20. erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant that interest under section\n234D for the AY 2001-02 paid during the year ought to be allowed as a\ndeduction u/s 37(1).\nInterest under section 234C.\n21. erred in charging interest under Sec. 234C

DCIT, CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

depreciation and\nmaintenance at the aircraft is held to be allowed. In the result, ground No.14 is allowed.\n67. Ground No.15 relating to disallowance on adhoc basis of Rs.10,00,000/- u/s.40A(2)(b) in respect of amount paid and reimbursed by the assessee to M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. has not been pressed due to smallness of amount. Accordingly, same

M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (EARLIER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-8,KOLKATTA), MUMBAI

depreciation and\n\nmaintenance at the aircraft is held to be allowed. In the result,\nground No.14 is allowed.\n\n67. Ground No.15 relating to disallowance on adhoc basis of\nRs.10,00,000/- u/s.40A(2)(b) in respect of amount paid and\nreimbursed by the assessee to M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. has\nnot been pressed due to smallness of amount

STAR INDIA PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST.C.I.T.-RANGE 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1112/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Range-11(1) Star House, Opp. Dr. E’Moses Road Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mahalaxmi,Mumbai-400 011. Pan:Aaacn 1335 Q आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1370 /Mum/2009,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 वष" Acit, Range-11(1) M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.K. Marg,Mumbai-400 020. Star House, Mahalaxmi,Mumbai-400 011. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand-Cit Assessee By: S/Shri Porus Kaka & Divesh Chawla सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order,Dtd.12/11/2008,Of Cit(A)-Xxxii,Mumbai,The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao) Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above Mentioned Ay. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Producing/ Procuring Television Programmes & Supplying Them To Overseas Media Companies.It Also Acts As An Agent For Advertisement Sales For Overseas Media Companies & Carries On Channel Subscription Business.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.10.2004,Declaring Total Income At Rs.42,79,81,700/-.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 28/12/2006, U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs.311.49 Crores.

44D of the Act and is not included in the profits of business as computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”, ninety per cent. of such quantum of receipts cannot be reduced under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) from the profits of the business. In other words, only ninety per cent. of the net amount

BSI SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

44D. There is no item called business loss allowable under any of the sections from s.30to 43D. The interpretation that after amendment, bad debt is allowable as and when assessee writes off the debt in the books of account is not acceptable as any assessee who had substantial income as on year end can write off debt from available sundry

M/S. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD vs. THE DY CIT 1(1),

depreciation of the unit of the earlier years starting from the initial year has to be set off before allowing claim u/s 80I. Facts of this year are identical. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Tribunal in assessment year 1988-89 (supra), we confirm the order of CIT(A) in relation to deduction u/s 80HH and set aside the order

M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

depreciation @ 60%. While deciding the issue in appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) noticed that the assessing officer has observed that the expenditure was incurred towards purchase of software system for upgradation of the computer network. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the 14 ITA 3092/Mum/2016 ITA 2072/Mum/2010 context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that

ACIT CIR. - 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

depreciation @ 60%. While deciding the issue in appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) noticed that the assessing officer has observed that the expenditure was incurred towards purchase of software system for upgradation of the computer network. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the 14 ITA 3092/Mum/2016 ITA 2072/Mum/2010 context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that