M/S ESSITY INDIA PVT LTD (FORMRLY KNOWN AS M/S BSN MEDICAL PVT LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12 (1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7007/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 October 2022AY 2015-163 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer, DRP, and TPO concerning assessment year 2015-16. The grounds of appeal included disallowance of branding/marketing expenses and depreciation.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable after the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA(3),Section 143(3),Section 144C(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

For Respondent: Shri Samruddhi Dhanjay Hande, D.R

Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Samruddhi Dhanjay Hande, D.R. Date of Hearing : 11 . 10 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11 . 10 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Appellant M/s. Sunsolar Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 03.07.2019 and order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 2 M/s. Essity India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. BSN Medical Pvt. Ltd.) 92CA(3) dated 30.10.2018 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) qua the assessment year 2015-16 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the order of the assessing officer disallowing Rs.14,59,562/- on account of branding/marketing expenses.

2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in disallowing depreciation of Rs.2,93,918/-”

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the Ld. D.R., at the outset, brought to our notice that the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and has brought on record form No.3 issued by the revenue authorities.

3.

In view of the matter, the present appeal of the assessee is dismissed having been become infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.10.2022.

More judgments on Section 92CA(3)

All 702 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →