GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION vs. ACIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

Section 44D(b) would be that this disallowance u/s 44D(b) would not apply wherever Article 7 of the Treaty

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

Section 44D(b) would be that this disallowance u/s 44D(b) would not apply wherever Article 7 of the Treaty

GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M. Balaganesha.Y : 2004-05 :

Section 44D(b) would be that this disallowance u/s 44D(b) would not apply wherever Article 7 of the Treaty

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 ()

disallowance made by the assessing officer should be restored. 40. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused materials on record. Insofar as availability of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act on sales-tax set off is concerned, it is noticed, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case in assessment year

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance made by the assessing officer should be restored. 40. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused materials on record. Insofar as availability of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act on sales-tax set off is concerned, it is noticed, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case in assessment year

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

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance made by the assessing officer should be restored. 40. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused materials on record. Insofar as availability of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act on sales-tax set off is concerned, it is noticed, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case in assessment year

TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

disallowed the remaining expenses. 36. We find that this issue is also covered with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’ in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, wherein the Supreme Court held that the expenditure in raising loans or issuing debentures would be revenue in nature, irrespective of whether the borrowal

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

disallowance should be retained.\nBeing aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n67. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the\nmaterial available on record. We find that while deciding a similar issue in\nfavour of the taxpayer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Balakrishna\nIndustries Ltd., reported in [2017] 88 taxmann.com

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

disallowance should be retained.\nBeing aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.\n67.\nWe have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the\nmaterial available on record. We find that while deciding a similar issue in\nfavour of the taxpayer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Balakrishna\nIndustries Ltd., reported in [2017] 88 taxmann.com

SEADRILL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

disallowance of Rs.564.59 lacs made by the AO. Thus the 11th ground of appeal is allowed. 11. The 12th ground of appeal 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the computation of deduction under section 80HHC on the following basis : a. Total Turnover was reckoned inclusive

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

44D of the Income-tax Act. In other words, receipts constituting independent income having no nexus with exports were required to be reduced from Business Profits under clause (baa). A bare reading of clause (baa)(1) indicates that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges, etc., formed part of gross total income being Business Profits

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

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

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. 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. 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

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. Accordingly, same\nis dismissed as not pressed. In the result, ground No.15 is\ndismissed.\n\n68. Assessee has also raised various additional grounds which