GEMINI PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1435/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL ( (Accountant Member)10 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interest rate should be determined by the currency in which the loan is to be repaid, not by the domestic interest rates of either party's country. The case was remanded to determine the repayment currency.

What were the facts?

The assessee advanced a loan of AED 26 million (approx. Rs. 49.25 crore) to its associated enterprise in Dubai. The assessee charged interest at 3.8% based on LIBOR, while the tax authorities insisted on an 11% rate, considering it an Indian Rupee loan.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the determination of the correct interest rate on a loan advanced to an associated enterprise, specifically whether it should be based on LIBOR for foreign currency or a domestic rate for Indian Rupees.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanshi Chokshi
For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, SR. D.R
Hearing: 02.06.2025Pronounced: 05.06.2025

Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 30/01/2025 passed by Faceless Assessment Unit, for assessment year 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal :

2 ITA 1435/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 Gemini Property Developers India LLP “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO and Hon'ble DRP, have erred in making an addition of Rs. 67,20,937to the income returned by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the addition be deleted and the returned income be accepted. 2.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →