SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

disallowing deduction u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs.22,75,000/- on the ground that these are CSR expenditure. 12. Brief facts are that this claim was also not made by the assessee in the original return of income; and the assessee filed a letter during the assessment proceedings making this additional claim. The AO did not admit

TRENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

disallowed CSR expenditure claimed in the computation of income u/s: 37 and Section 37 & Section 80G of the Act are independent of each other. TAX DEP - That there are only two exceptions provided in Section 80G of the Act, it can be inferred that the other contributions made u/s. 135(5) of the Companies Act are eligible for deduction u/s.80G

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

disallowed Rs 8.66 crores for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company

M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMIITED ,MUMBSI vs. DY CIT(APPEAL)-RANGE-8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Dy. Cit, Mumbai-8(1)(2), Or Piramal Tower, Agastya National Facelss Assessment Vs. Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Centre, Delhi, Kamani Junction, Kurla Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400070. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacn 4538 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ronak Doshi : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr & Mr. Samuel Pitta, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2022

5 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that corporate 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that corporate 2. The Appellant prays that it be held that corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction' and the suo guarantee is not an 'international transaction' and the suo guarantee is not an 'international transaction' and the suo- moto adjustme

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 and 80G

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

disallowance of these expenditures u/s 80G, if other\nconditions of section 80G are fulfilled. There is no allegation of Revenue that other conditions\nof Section 80G are not fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground.\"\n22. Respectfully following the decisions referred above, we set\naside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition,\nthus allowing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

ix) Further, one of the allegations made by the ld. CIT(A), is that DFPCL has adopted two stages restructuring just to claim huge advantage of depreciation on goodwill/intangibles. However, the ld. AR highlighted that the demerger, either directly or through two step process would have yielded the same result from a tax perspective as the sales consideration of demerger

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL)--50, MUMAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

ix) Further, one of the allegations made by the ld. CIT(A), is that DFPCL has adopted two stages restructuring just to claim huge advantage of depreciation on goodwill/intangibles. However, the ld. AR highlighted that the demerger, either directly or through two step process would have yielded the same result from a tax perspective as the sales consideration of demerger

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

ix) Further, one of the allegations made by the ld. CIT(A), is that DFPCL has adopted two stages restructuring just to claim huge advantage of depreciation on goodwill/intangibles. However, the ld. AR highlighted that the demerger, either directly or through two step process would have yielded the same result from a tax perspective as the sales consideration of demerger

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MUMBAI.50, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

ix) Further, one of the allegations made by the ld. CIT(A), is that DFPCL has adopted two stages restructuring just to claim huge advantage of depreciation on goodwill/intangibles. However, the ld. AR highlighted that the demerger, either directly or through two step process would have yielded the same result from a tax perspective as the sales consideration of demerger

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

ix of the aforesaid instruction, it is applicable to deduction towards contribution to provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees. Whereas the provision for pension of Rs. 3,724 crore is not towards contribution to any fund, but it is payable to the employees directly. Also

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

ix of the aforesaid instruction, it is applicable to deduction towards contribution to provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees. Whereas the provision for pension of Rs. 3,724 crore is not towards contribution to any fund, but it is payable to the employees directly. Also

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

IX also under book profits ( 11 Disallowance of Trip Ground No. XI Ground No. Ground No. XI Scheme Expenses XIV 12 Disallowance of Colour Ground No. XII Ground No. Ground No. XII Idea Stores expenses XV 13 Disallowance of Ground No. Ground No. Ground No, XIV XVII XIV discount and incentives which are target based to increase sales given

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G or under section 263or under section 270Aor under section 271or under section 272Aor an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under Page No. 17 ITA NO.6832 & 6772/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03) CO NO.190/MUM/2011 M/s. Novartis India Limited section 263or an order passed by a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 2, CUFFE PARADE

IX 11 Disallowance of Trip Scheme Expenses Ground No. XI Ground No. XIV Ground No. XI 12 Disallowance of Colour Idea Stores expenses Ground No. XII Ground No. XV Ground No. XII 13 Disallowance of discount and incentives which are target based to increase sales given to dealers Ground No. XIV Ground No. XVIII Ground No, XIV 14 Non-Acceptance

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

IX debts under the Act & ( also under book profits 11 Disallowance of Trip Ground No. XI Ground No. Ground No. XI Scheme Expenses XIV 12 Disallowance of Colour Ground No. XII Ground No. Ground No. XII Idea Stores expenses XV 13 Disallowance of Ground No. Ground No. Ground No, discount and incentives XIV XVII XIV which are target based

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 37(1), thereby accepting the submission that the brand is not owned by the assessee. The Id AR further presented same line of arguments to submit that the TPO is not correct in making any TP adjustment towards the notional fees on the brand that is not owned by the assessee, which the TPO held as to be received