ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

disallowance of ESOP expenses under section 37 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, while deciding a similar issue in Biocon Ltd. (supra), observed as follows: - “6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

disallowance of ESOP expenses under section 37 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, while deciding a similar issue in Biocon Ltd. (supra), observed as follows: - “6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

disallowance of ESOP expenses under section 37 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, while deciding a similar issue in Biocon Ltd. (supra), observed as follows: - “6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

disallowance of ESOP expenses under section 37 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, while deciding a similar issue in Biocon Ltd. (supra), observed as follows: - “6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

disallowance of ESOP expenses under section 37 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, while deciding a similar issue in Biocon Ltd. (supra), observed as follows: - “6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record

M/S. CALYON BANK (FORMERLY CREDIT AGRICOLE INDUSUER),MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal, as filed by the department is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vivek Varma

disallowance by treating it as royalty, he had no occasion to consider the deductibility or otherwise of the amount as per the prescription of section 44A. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored

JCIT (OSD)- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the deduction primarily on the basis that the expenditure incurred is not real expenditure and is notional in nature so as to claim deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. We find that similar contentions of the Revenue were rejected by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v/s Biocon Ltd [2020] 121 taxmann.com 351 (Karn.), wherein

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED MIL),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the deduction primarily on the basis that the expenditure incurred is not real expenditure and is notional in nature so as to claim deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. We find that similar contentions of the Revenue were rejected by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v/s Biocon Ltd [2020] 121 taxmann.com 351 (Karn.), wherein

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED MIL),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed the deduction primarily on the basis that the expenditure incurred is not real expenditure and is notional in nature so as to claim deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. We find that similar contentions of the Revenue were rejected by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v/s Biocon Ltd [2020] 121 taxmann.com 351 (Karn.), wherein

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(3)(2),, MUMBAI

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

Disallowed in assessment order\n7.4\nLd. DR, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the orders of the lower\nauthorities and submitted that the department has filed SLP on this issue before\nthe Hon'ble Apex Court.\n7.5 We have considered the rival submissions and find that the issue is\ncovered in favour of the assessee by several decisions

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 1 (3)92), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is a In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is a In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

disallowance in the hands of employer will mean double taxation. employer will mean double taxation. In this connection, we n this connection, we note that the said decision of the Id. Special Bench has been note that the said decision of the Id. Special Bench has been note that the said decision of the Id. Special Bench has been appealed

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

disallowed. However, no addition on this account is being made to the total income of the assessee since no deduction was claimed in the computation of total income.” 11.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). Following the above decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal relied upon by the Assessee during the assessment

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

disallowed. However, no addition on this account is being made to the total income of the assessee since no deduction was claimed in the computation of total income.” 11.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). Following the above decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal relied upon by the Assessee during the assessment

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

Section 80 IB of the act – Piparia [ Silvasa] Unit Both the CIT (A) and the AO erred in not considering income of ₹ 5,66,861 /– being sale of empty containers as profit of industrial undertaking for the purposes of deduction u/s 80 IB. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 80 IB of the act – Piparia [ Silvasa] Unit Both the CIT (A) and the AO erred in not considering income of ₹ 5,66,861 /– being sale of empty containers as profit of industrial undertaking for the purposes of deduction u/s 80 IB. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 80 IB of the act – Piparia [ Silvasa] Unit Both the CIT (A) and the AO erred in not considering income of ₹ 5,66,861 /– being sale of empty containers as profit of industrial undertaking for the purposes of deduction u/s 80 IB. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 80 IB of the act – Piparia [ Silvasa] Unit Both the CIT (A) and the AO erred in not considering income of ₹ 5,66,861 /– being sale of empty containers as profit of industrial undertaking for the purposes of deduction u/s 80 IB. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits Ipca Laboratories

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

Section 80 IB of the act – Piparia [ Silvasa] Unit Both the CIT (A) and the AO erred in not considering income of ₹ 5,66,861 /– being sale of empty containers as profit of industrial undertaking for the purposes of deduction u/s 80 IB. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits Ipca Laboratories