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

b) does not raise any substantial question of law". The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd.(supra) reiterated the view by holding that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2), is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated under section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Thus

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of INR 7,96,520/-. Deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 80IC and Section 80G of the Act were accepted by the Assessing Officer. 4. Subsequently, on perusal of the assessment records the PCIT formed an opinion that there were certain discrepancies in respect of deduction claimed under Section 80IC

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 OF ADVERTISEMENT AND BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES OF Rs.27,90,84,346/- 1. On the facts

DCIT-10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.JYOTHY LABORATORIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

801C(2) and considering the above fact on record this ground of appeal is allowed" 4.3. 6 In view of the submission made by the appellant company, discussion and analysis given by the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 on each and every parameter which has been taken up by the AO for disallowance u/s 80IC(2)(a), the principles

JCIT(OSD)-10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.JYOTHY LABORATORIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

801C(2) and considering the above fact on record this ground of appeal is allowed" 4.3. 6 In view of the submission made by the appellant company, discussion and analysis given by the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 on each and every parameter which has been taken up by the AO for disallowance u/s 80IC(2)(a), the principles

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

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

801C by allocating Research and development expenditure of Rs.11,23,00,000/- and interest expenditure of Rs. 1 1,02,00,000/- to fee Baddi unit eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC on the alleged ground that such expenditure are attributable to the said Baddi Unit. 2. The AO failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the • Research

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

b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Addl C.I.T. erred in proposing and the DRP erred in confirming disallowance u/s 40A(9) of Rs. 12,00,000 representing amount paid to Mahindra Academy. The Appellant contends that the school run by MahindraAeademy was for the benefit appellant's employees and also

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 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

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 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

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 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

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 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(2), 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 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

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 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

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 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

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 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

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 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

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 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 2633@Eaqcbz@2015 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacw2472M Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 10 (1), Aayakar Bhavan, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020 Vk-Vk-La- 2738@Eaqcbz@2015 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 10 (1), Aayakar Bhavan, ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 Cuke Vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacw2472M

B. V. Gopinath and others (2014) 1SSC 351; 2) Golder Vs. Great Boulder Mines 33TC 55. 9.3 Per contra, the learned DR strongly supported the findings of the AO/CIT(A) in disallowing freebies to medical practitioners u/s 37(1) of the Act. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Apex laboratories