IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

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

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

MARTIN AND HARRIS LABORATORIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PCIT), AAYKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI-400020

In the result, the present appeal by the Assessee is allowed

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken. Sub-section (6) of the section 801C

DCIT,CC-7(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TIME TECHNOPLAST LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarita No.6858/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Time Technoplast Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम 2Nd Floor, 55, Corporate 7(2) Avenue, Saki Vihar Road, Room No. 637, Aaykar Andheri East, Mumbai – Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400072, Maharashtra – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact3858L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

801C? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 3,45,376/ was on the basis of discrepancies in the value of machinery found at the premises ie. Pantnagar Unit

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

depreciation on such difference in exchange as capitalized in the books of accounts. 17. Disallowance of deduction under section 80 1C — Rudrapur Unit On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellant objects to the arbitrary methodology of calculation of profits derived from the Appellant's Rudrapur Unit directed by the DRP and applied

GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

801C of the Act claimed by the eligible units of the Appellant, by excluding transport subsidy, transport recoveries, claims received, miscellaneous income, sundry balances written back and net gain on exchange difference forming part of the 'Other Income of such eligible units and in reducing the deduction claimed accordingly. 2) The learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in confirming the action

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 37(1) of the Act. It is trite that assessment proceedings before taxing authority are to assess correct tax liability. However, in the present case, the AO as well as learned DRP did not entertain the claim of the assessee in view of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), without going into the merits

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of goodwill amounting to Rs. 33,42,442/- 13 Erred in allowing the claim of the assessee of sale of certified emission receipt relying on My home Power Ltd. [(2012) 27 taxmann.com 27] amounting to Rs. 6,02,00,000/- 14 Erred in directing to treat interest subsidy from TUF as capital in nature amounting

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of goodwill amounting to Rs. 33,42,442/- 13 Erred in allowing the claim of the assessee of sale of certified emission receipt relying on My home Power Ltd. [(2012) 27 taxmann.com 27] amounting to Rs. 6,02,00,000/- 14 Erred in directing to treat interest subsidy from TUF as capital in nature amounting

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. FLIPSPACES TECHNOLOGY LABS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

801C And 802A, 8th Floor, Eureka Tower, Mindspace Link Road Malad West Maharashtra-400064 PAN:AACCF6130F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rashmikant Modi, Ms. Ketki Rajshrike Respondent by Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.05.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the revenue is against order dated 28/01/2025 passed

DCIT CIR 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathapiramal Enterprise Limited Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(3) (Formerly Known As Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013

depreciation as claimed in Return of income. GROUND NO. VI: ADJUSTMENT OF INVENTORV AS PER SECTION 145A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,20,83,000/-: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the ease and in law, the AO erred in following the erroneous direction of the DRP in re-computing value of closing stock

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodpiramal Healthcare Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Known As Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax- 7(1) Piramal Tower, Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013

depreciation as claimed in Return of Income. P a g e | 4 ITA No.1257 & 1486/Mum/2014 - AY. 2009-10 Piramal Healthcare Limited Vs. DCIT-7(1 DCIT-Circle 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. ) GROUND V: ADJUST MENT OF INVENTORY AS PER SECTION 145A OF Rs.1,16,08,088/- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case