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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1799/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Piramal Enterprises Limited Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Piramal Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, Healthcare Limited) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn4538P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 850/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Piramal Enterprises Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Piramal Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Healthcare Limited) Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओि से / Appellant By : Shri A Mohan, Cit Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओि से / Respondent By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal, Ronak Doshi, Ars’ सुनवाई की िािीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2020 घोर्णा की िािीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2020

disallowance under section 35A of the Act relating to Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (SPPL). 61. Briefly stated facts are, noticing

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

disallowance of\nexpenditure in relation to earning of exempted income. The\nassessee has also raised additional ground in relation to\ndisallowance under section 14A of the Act.\n6.1 In the case in hand, the assessee bank has three types of\ninstruments appearing in its balance sheet, the income earned from\nwhich has been claimed as exempted under the provisions

YES BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance of\nexpenditure in relation to earning of exempted income. The\nassessee has also raised additional ground in relation to\ndisallowance under section 14A of the Act.\n\nM/s Yes Bank Ltd. 10\nITA No. 3017,& 4278/M/2019\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nSPEEDY JUSTICE\n6.1 In the case in hand, the assessee bank has three types of\ninstruments

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

disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A

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

disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A

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

disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A

MIRAE ASSET CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

35A] of the Act. The assessee has not disallowed any sum u/s 14 A of the act. The learned assessing officer has computed the disallowance of Rs. 22,521,366/ The learned AO did not 12 Mirae Asset Capital Markets (India) Pvt Ltd disallow any interest expenditure income which is directly relating to the investment in the passthrough certificates. However

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

section 35A of the Act. 3. The Appellant prays that the A.O be directed to allow deduction claimed u/s. 35A of the Act since the term trademark in the context of pharmaceutical medicine has similar meaning to that of a patent right. GROUND VIII: DISALLOWANCE

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction of Rs.24285714/- claimed u/s.35A in respect of the acquisition of the trade mark by M/s.Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (since merged with the assessee company). 4. While doing so, the Ld.CIT(A)'s failed to appreciate that Section 35A

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction of Rs.24285714/- claimed u/s.35A in respect of the acquisition of the trade mark by M/s.Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (since merged with the assessee company). 4. While doing so, the Ld.CIT(A)'s failed to appreciate that Section 35A

TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 3. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had pointed out that the assessee had set up Research and Development facilities by incurring expenditure. An application for recognition of such facility was filed before the Ministry on 22.12.2006. Such recognition was granted on 2.9.2007. In the meantime

DCIT-14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TITAN LABORATORIES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 3. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had pointed out that the assessee had set up Research and Development facilities by incurring expenditure. An application for recognition of such facility was filed before the Ministry on 22.12.2006. Such recognition was granted on 2.9.2007. In the meantime

TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 3. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had pointed out that the assessee had set up Research and Development facilities by incurring expenditure. An application for recognition of such facility was filed before the Ministry on 22.12.2006. Such recognition was granted on 2.9.2007. In the meantime

GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

35A before the DRP. Whereas the DRP has dealt on the objections and issued specific directions and passed the order u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 31.10.2016.The AO has passed the order considering the transfer pricing adjustment, the DRP directions, M/s Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai. reallocation of expenses and CBDT Circular and disallowance

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

Section 69C. The Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case Rajmoti Industries(supra) have discussed in details about the distinction between account payee cheques and crossed cheques and have held that it is only account payee cheques issued by the tax-payer shall meet the compliance of Section 40A(3) and 40A(3A) under the amended provisions , wherein

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

Section 69C. The Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case Rajmoti Industries(supra) have discussed in details about the distinction between account payee cheques and crossed cheques and have held that it is only account payee cheques issued by the tax-payer shall meet the compliance of Section 40A(3) and 40A(3A) under the amended provisions , wherein

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

Section 35A of the Income Tax Act 1961, to Trademarks, open to be decided in an appropriate case. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground of add a new ground which may be necessary. 48. The only issue that came up for our consideration from revenue appeal is deletion of disallowances

ADDL CIT CEN CIR IX, MUMBAI vs. PRISM CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed of in terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

disallowance of community expenses at Rs.1,53,815/-. Due to smallness of the amount involved, this ground was not pressed by the assessee, therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed. 6. The last ground pertains to claim in respect of sales tax and VAT subsidy received by the assessee. This ground was taken as additional ground. Since, this ground