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)

35A permitted deduction only upto A.Y. 1998-99 and in later years even the part deduction was not allowable. 5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that the deduction u/s.80HHC for the purpose of section 115JB is to be worked out on the basis of adjusted

KAMDHENU DEPARTMENTAL STORES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR7(3) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountat Member Kamdhenu Departmental Vs. Acit, Cc – 7(3) Stores Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.5, Patliputra Chs Mumbai.-400020. Ltd., Four Bungalow, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr2811F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Rushabh Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Tejinderpalsinghanand.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

section 68 of the Act. (e) The Id. CIT(Appeals) erred in facts and law in not appreciating that the cash sales have already been offered to tax and addition thereof again will lead to double taxation which is against the principles of law. 2. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or drop

DCIT-14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TITAN LABORATORIES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

35A and 35AB reveals in no uncertain terms, that the purpose behind these provisions is to provide impetus for research, development of new technologies, obtaining patent rights, copyrights and knowhow." 12. In view of above referred two decisions and by applying the same to the facts on hand, we have no hesitation in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction

TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

35A and 35AB reveals in no uncertain terms, that the purpose behind these provisions is to provide impetus for research, development of new technologies, obtaining patent rights, copyrights and knowhow." 12. In view of above referred two decisions and by applying the same to the facts on hand, we have no hesitation in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction

TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

35A and 35AB reveals in no uncertain terms, that the purpose behind these provisions is to provide impetus for research, development of new technologies, obtaining patent rights, copyrights and knowhow." 12. In view of above referred two decisions and by applying the same to the facts on hand, we have no hesitation in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation Page No. | 15 ITA NO. 465 & 931/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2015-16) UltraTech Cement Limited demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

35A, 35AB, 35ABB, 35D, 35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation Page No. | 15 ITA NO. 465 & 931/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2015-16) UltraTech Cement Limited demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

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

68,692/- incurred by the assessee towards advertisement and its business promotion under three heads viz. (i) Key Account Manager (KAM) Expenses; (ii) Customer Relation Manager (CRM) Expenses; and (iii) Gift Articles would not be hit by the “Explanation” to Sec. 37 of the I-T Act. 34. Insofar the observations of the lower authorities that the assessee

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

68 of the Act. 3.1.11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in assuming the transaction relating to issue of equity shares as an international transaction within the explanation (i) (c) to Section 92B of the Act inserted vide Finance

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

68 of the Act. 3.1.11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in assuming the transaction relating to issue of equity shares as an international transaction within the explanation (i) (c) to Section 92B of the Act inserted vide Finance