DCIT 6(2), MUMBAI vs. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, v. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACG1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri. Rignesh K. Das (DR) Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra (DR) Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 15-02-2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15 -05-2019 आदेश

DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. HIRANANDNANI PALACE GARDENS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

section 145A of the I.T. Act. The AO has not assigned any cogent reason as to why the method, which has been consistently followed by assessee and accepted by the department in past as well in succeeding assessment years and which is in accordance with the : 6 : ITA Nos. 4392, 4393 & 4394/Mum/2016 recognized principles of accounting by ICAI, is being

DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6 (2), MUMBAI

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

House, G.K. Marg, Lower Power, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AAACG1376N ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Mrs.Aarti Vissanji Present for the Department Shri. Rajesh Pardeshi, JCIT Date of hearing 17/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2023 2 Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited I.T.A. No.3384&3385/Mum/2014 I.T.A. No.3642/Mum/2016 and I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeal filed

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

House Property, since the assessee company is not the owner of the said properties during the financial year 2003-04. Further, the assessee company is also not in the business of letting out of premises. Hence, the rental receipts can also not be taxed under the head Business Income. Such rental receipts can only be taxed under the head "Income

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)

house property" and to direct the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s.24(a). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the 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

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)

house property" and to direct the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s.24(a). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the 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

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

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 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM These two cross appeals – one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue

CRIMSON PROPERTY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

property and grant the relief to the assessee. Thus, consequently allowed the part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved, by the order of ld Commissioner (appeals) both the party filed their Cross Appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has challenged the confirmation of addition on account of Service Tax collected as not paid and the disallowance under section

PENNWALAT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

house property. 8. We find that this issue has not been adjudicated by CIT(A) despite specific ground raised before him. However, this issue needs to go back inclusive in the gross receipts. In case these are inclusive of gross receipts, the AO has to take ALV of the property excluding these expenses. For re-deciding this issue, the matter

PENNWALT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

house property. 8. We find that this issue has not been adjudicated by CIT(A) despite specific ground raised before him. However, this issue needs to go back inclusive in the gross receipts. In case these are inclusive of gross receipts, the AO has to take ALV of the property excluding these expenses. For re-deciding this issue, the matter

PENWALT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

house property. 8. We find that this issue has not been adjudicated by CIT(A) despite specific ground raised before him. However, this issue needs to go back inclusive in the gross receipts. In case these are inclusive of gross receipts, the AO has to take ALV of the property excluding these expenses. For re-deciding this issue, the matter

M/S. NRB BEARINGS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

145A of the Act and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out addition on account of estimation of profit. 8. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in approving the additions of Rs. 48,064/- and Rs. 1,41,776/- made by the Assessing Officer for belated payment of ESIC and PF respectively. The learned

ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI vs. NRB BEARINGS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

145A of the Act and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out addition on account of estimation of profit. 8. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in approving the additions of Rs. 48,064/- and Rs. 1,41,776/- made by the Assessing Officer for belated payment of ESIC and PF respectively. The learned

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

house property”. Therefore, Ground no.4 is allowed. 7. Ground No.5 is not pressed by the Ld. Counsel. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 8. Ground No.6: In this ground the assessee has challenged the action of Ld. AO and the DRP in making the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, being the payments made to manufactures towards purchase of finished goods

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 ()

house property income is to be determined at the annual value determined by Municipal Corporation. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, hence, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we direct the AO to determine ALV at the value determined by Municipal Corporation for the year under consideration. Hence, this ground of the assessee