ACIT, MUMBAI vs. FLIPSPACES TECHNOLOGY LABS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

801C And 802A, 8th Floor, Eureka Tower, Mindspace Link Road Malad West Maharashtra-400064 PAN:AACCF6130F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rashmikant Modi, Ms. Ketki Rajshrike Respondent by Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.05.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the revenue is against order dated 28/01/2025 passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: the Hon'ble Bombay High Court" 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record and examine the position in law in view of the submissions advanced.

68,856/- made u/s. 801E of the Act without appreciating the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT on this issue in assessee's case in respect of A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 has not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court" 4. We have heard both

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: the Hon'ble Bombay High Court" 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record and examine the position in law in view of the submissions advanced.

68,856/- made u/s. 801E of the Act without appreciating the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT on this issue in assessee's case in respect of A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 has not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court" 4. We have heard both

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 2633@Eaqcbz@2015 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacw2472M Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 10 (1), Aayakar Bhavan, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020 Vk-Vk-La- 2738@Eaqcbz@2015 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 10 (1), Aayakar Bhavan, ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 Cuke Vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacw2472M

68,832 LIBOR/EURIBOR 6 Receipt of Royalty 5,89,31,993 CUP 7 Payment of Royalty 2,77,96,335 CUP 8 Guarantee Fees Income 49,93,990 CUP 9 Transfer of shares with Wockardt EU 19,73,80,000 CUP 10 Recovery of expenses/Reimbursement of 2,01,07,325 At cost expenses 11 Import of fixed assets

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. M/S GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Glenmark Income Tax (Ltu)-1, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 29Th Floor, Center-1, Glenmark House, World Trade Center, Hdo Corporate Building, Cuffe Parade, Wing A, Mumbai – 400 005 Vs. B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakla, Opp. Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacg2207L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16 . 02 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 04 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh: The Appellant, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Revenue’) By Filing The Present Appeal, Sought To Set Aside The Impugned Order Dated 22.11.2019 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Qua The Assessment Year 2009-10 On The Grounds Inter Alia That :-

68,36,540/- (after claiming deduction of Rs.97,06,74,306/- under section 80C) and book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at Rs.2,38,55,12,770/-. Original assessment was framed under section 143 of the Act at the total income of Rs.35,06,06,77,780/- under

DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial Ipca Laboratories ltd; A.Y. 2005:06 to 2010–11 undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 5. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another.”” 04. In ITA No. 2815/Mum/2015

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

801C by allocating Research and development expenditure of Rs.11,23,00,000/- and interest expenditure of Rs. 1 1,02,00,000/- to fee Baddi unit eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC on the alleged ground that such expenditure are attributable to the said Baddi Unit. 2. The AO failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the • Research

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

801C to Rs. 99,76,03,710 as against Rs. 359,67,62,865 claimed by the Appellant relating to the said unit. The said directions of the DRP are contrary to facts and the position in law and are in any event perverse and have been given without giving the Appellant an opportunity of being heard

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

801C of IT. Act, 1961. The relevant finding of Hon'ble Apex Court is as under :- "Assistance by way of subsidies which are reimbursed on the incurring of costs relatable to a business, do not fall under the head "income from other sources", which is a residuary head of income that can be availed only if income does not fall

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

801C of IT. Act, 1961. The relevant finding of Hon'ble Apex Court is as under :- "Assistance by way of subsidies which are reimbursed on the incurring of costs relatable to a business, do not fall under the head "income from other sources", which is a residuary head of income that can be availed only if income does not fall