M/S. I 2 TECHNOLOGIES (NETHERLAND) B.V.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee for AYs 2002-03, 2004-05 are allowed and the appeal filed by Revenue against deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pawan Singh

68 taxman.com 97, Reliance Industries Ltd. [2016] 69 taxman.com 311, [2011] 16 taxman.com 371, Solid Works Corporation [2012] 51 SOT 34, Software & System (P.) Ltd. v/s DCIT/ACIT [2014] 47 taxman.com 140, Antwerp Diamond Bank NV Engineering Centre [2014] 65 SOT 23, Inc. v/s. ADIT [2015] 61 taxman.com 36, Team Telecom International (P.) Ltd. [2011] 12 ITR (T) 688 and ADIT

LUCENT TECHNOLGIES GRL LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

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

68 taxmann.com97); Black Duck Software Inc. (86 taxmann.com 62); I.T.C. Ltd. (79 taxmann. com 206), the Tribunal has considered the term ‘process’ while deciding the issue of software is not royalty. We also find that in the case of AVEVA Information Technology India (P.) Ltd. (85taxmann.com 14), the Tribunal had considered the argument that software was Invention/Patent

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

44D of the I. T. Act. In other words, receipts constituting independent income having no nexus with exports were required to be reduced from Business Profits under clause (baa). A bare reading of clause (baa)(1) indicates that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges etc. formed part of gross total income being Business Profits

M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

44D of the I. T. Act. In other words, receipts constituting independent income having no nexus with exports were required to be reduced from Business Profits under clause (baa). A bare reading of clause (baa)(1) indicates that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges etc. formed part of gross total income being Business Profits

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 ()

44D of the I. T. Act. In other words, receipts constituting independent income having no nexus with exports were required to be reduced from Business Profits under clause (baa). A bare reading of clause (baa)(1) indicates that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges etc. formed part of gross total income being Business Profits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

44D have to be allowed as expenses.\nAfter including such receipts of income and after deducting such expenses,\nthe total of net receipts are profits of the business of the assessee computed\nunder the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" from which\ndeductions are to be made under Clauses (1) and (2) of Explanation (baa) to\nsection

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

44D have to be allowed as expenses.\nAfter including such receipts of income and after deducting such expenses,\nthe total of net receipts are profits of the business of the assessee computed\nunder the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession\" from which\ndeductions are to be made under Clauses (1) and (2) of Explanation (baa) to\nsection

DCIT, CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

68,19,77,442/-. Subsequently, on 10.01.2003, bonus in the ratio of 2:1 was given. In the books of account, the cost for original units was averaged between bonus and original units. Thereafter original units (4,31,55,208 units) were sold for Rs.\n45,92,29,226/- incurring loss of Rs. 17,28,952/- in the accounts. Whereas

M/S. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD vs. THE DY CIT 1(1),

44D of the Income-tax Act. In other words, receipts constituting independent income having no nexus with exports were required to be reduced from Business Profits under clause (baa). A bare reading of clause (baa)(1) indicates that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges, etc., formed part of gross total income being Business Profits

GREATSHIP (INDIA ) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.6083/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Greatship (India) Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Vs. Tax-5(1)(1), Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020

44D, who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or— (i) the advance tax paid by such assessee on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent, of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance

ITO 9(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. ANCHOR RESIDENCY P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

68 TTJ (Jodh) 729] It is well settled law that tax can be levied only on real income and not on any hypothetical or notional income. Even if an assessee who could earn an income, but chooses not to earn the same, cannot be made liable to pay tax on any such income which he could earn but has chosen

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,241. 30 On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 3 1 Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 1997-98. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate Bench in ITA.No. 5238/Mum/2003 dated 25.01.2017 held

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

68,241.\n30 On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.\n31 Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we\nobserve from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the\nassessee for the A.Y. 1997-98. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate\nBench in ITA.No. 5238/Mum/2003 dated 25.01.2017 held

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed

44D of the IT Act. In other words, receipts constituting independent income having no nexus with exports were required to be reduced from business, profits under clause (baa). A bare reading of clause (baa)(1) indicates that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges, etc. formed part of gross total income being business profits. But for the purposes

STAR INDIA PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T.-RANGE311(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

68. After going through the relevant terms under both the agreements, we do not find any material difference since under both the agreements, the commission is to be paid on the basis of amount collected by the assessee. Clause (E)(4) specifically provides that no commission shall be due to the assessee against the amounts not received. Therefore

ASST CIR 32(3), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SWASTIK DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 40b(ii) of the IT Act. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs37,34,907/- made u/s 41(1) of the IT Act. M/s Shree Swastik Developers 3 3. There has been a delay of 34 days on the part of the assessee

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)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings