VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

194H is not applicable on trade discounts\ngiven to prepaid distributors. We find that similar findings have also been\nrendered recently by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Vodafone\nDigilink Ltd. (supra), vide order dated 14.10.2024. Therefore, respectfully\nfollowing the decisions cited supra, the disallowance on account of the trade\ndiscount given to the prepaid distributors under section

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

194H is not applicable on trade discounts\ngiven to prepaid distributors. We find that similar findings have also been\nrendered recently by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Vodafone\nDigilink Ltd. (supra), vide order dated 14.10.2024. Therefore, respectfully\nfollowing the decisions cited supra, the disallowance on account of the trade\ndiscount given to the prepaid distributors under section

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

property; or\nprovision of services or lending or borrowing money; or\n(c)\nany other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets\nof such enterprises\n28. From the perusal of the financial statement of the assessee, forming part\nof the paper book from pages 1-27, we find that the assessee has declared the\nletters

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

house facilities while the\nTribunal allowed the same. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court upheld the decision\nof the Tribunal holding that merely because the prescribed authority segregated\nexpenditure into two parts by itself could not be sufficient to deny the benefit to\nthe assessee u/s 35(2AB). The issue involved the in the case of Cadila Health\nCare

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)

house research & development facility. Therefore, we agree with the contentions of the Id. counsel for the assessee, before us that in the impugned year involved before us, the Revenue has erred in restricting the claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent approved by the prescribed authority ie. DSIR. 21. The aforesaid decision

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

house research & development facility. Therefore, we agree with the contentions of the Id. counsel for the assessee, before us that in the impugned year involved before us, the Revenue has erred in restricting the claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent approved by the prescribed authority ie. DSIR. 21. The aforesaid decision

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

property; or\n(b) provision of services or lending or borrowing money; or\n(c) any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or\nassets of such enterprises\n28. From the perusal of the financial statement of the assessee, forming part\nof the paper book from pages 1-27, we find that the assessee has declared

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

house facilities while the\nTribunal allowed the same. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court upheld the decision\nof the Tribunal holding that merely because the prescribed authority segregated\nexpenditure into two parts by itself could not be sufficient to deny the benefit to\nthe assessee u/s 35(2AB). The issue involved the in the case of Cadila Health\nCare

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

property; or\n(b) provision of services or lending or borrowing money; or\n(c) any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or\nassets of such enterprises\n28. From the perusal of the financial statement of the assessee, forming part\nof the paper book from pages 1-27, we find that the assessee has declared

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

property; or\nprovision of services or lending or borrowing money; or\n(c)\nany other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets\nof such enterprises\n28. From the perusal of the financial statement of the assessee, forming part\nof the paper book from pages 1-27, we find that the assessee has declared the\nletters

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house facilities while the Tribunal allowed the same. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding that merely because the prescribed authority segregated expenditure into two parts by itself could not be sufficient to deny the benefit to the assessee u/s 35(2AB). The issue involved the in the case of Cadila Health Care

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house facilities while the Tribunal allowed the same. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding that merely because the prescribed authority segregated expenditure into two parts by itself could not be sufficient to deny the benefit to the assessee u/s 35(2AB). The issue involved the in the case of Cadila Health Care

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

house research &\ndevelopment facility. Therefore, we agree with the contentions\nof the Id. counsel for the assessee, before us that in the\nimpugned year involved before us, the Revenue has erred in\nrestricting the claim of weighted deduction under section\n35(2AB) of the Act to the extent approved by the prescribed\nauthority ie. DSIR.\n21. The aforesaid decision

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

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

house R&D facility as\nweighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. As noted\nabove, in the present case, the prescribed authority has already\npassed an order granting the approval in Form No. 3CM. We find\nthat in various other decisions relied upon by the learned AR, the\ncoordinate benches of the Tribunal rendered similar findings that\nprior

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

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

house R&D facility as\nweighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. As noted\nabove, in the present case, the prescribed authority has already\npassed an order granting the approval in Form No. 3CM. We find\nthat in various other decisions relied upon by the learned AR, the\ncoordinate benches of the Tribunal rendered similar findings that\nprior

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

house R&D facility as\nweighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. As noted\nabove, in the present case, the prescribed authority has already\npassed an order granting the approval in Form No. 3CM. We find\nthat in various other decisions relied upon by the learned AR, the\ncoordinate benches of the Tribunal rendered similar findings that\nprior

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

Section 194H, without appreciating the fact that such bonus/ incentive without appreciating the fact that such bonus/ incentive without appreciating the fact that such bonus/ incentive are offered subsequent to sales and therefore are are offered subsequent to sales and therefore are are offered subsequent to sales and therefore are essentially in nature of commission as envisaged u/s essentially

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

house property." 31 ITA 1676/Mum/2015 ITA 1739/Mum/2015 34. Respectfully following the precedent, we decide the issue in favour of assessee.” 56. As this issue has been squarely covered by the decision of the co- ordinate bench, respectfully following the said decision, we allow this ground of appeal filed by the assessee. GROUND 12 : CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF GAIN ON DIFFERENCE