S. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 968/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 October 2019AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored back to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to re-examine the factual aspect and reconsider the assessee's submissions in light of the cited judicial precedents.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not charge notional interest on export receivables from its Associated Enterprises (AEs), following a consistent policy of not charging interest on delayed payments to both AEs and non-AEs. The lower authorities failed to consider binding judicial precedents on this matter.

What were the issues?

Whether notional interest on export receivables from AEs should be charged when the assessee follows a consistent policy of not charging interest on delayed payments to both AEs and non-AEs.

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, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal- Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav - Ld.DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) M/s. S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. ACIT-Circle-5(3)(2) Office No.BW-3010 Mumbai. बनाम/ Bharat Diamond Bourse Vs. Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAICS-5514-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant by : Shri Madhur Aggarwal- Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Rajneesh Yadav - Ld.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 16/09/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/10/2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2011-12 contest final assessment order dated 28/01/2016 passed by Ld. ACIT-Circle-5(3)(2), Mumbai u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [DRP] u/s 144C(5) dated 14/12/2015 on various grounds of appeal.

2 M/s. S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt.Ltd. Assessment Year :2011-12 2. The learned Authorized Representative, at the outset drew our attention to ground No. 2.1.2 and submitted that the sole issue under appeal is notional interest on export receivables by the assessee from its Associated Enterprises (AE). The Ld. AR pleaded that the terms of credit period were uniform and the assessee did not charge any interest from its non-AEs for delayed payment and followed a consistent policy with respect to AEs as well as non-AEs. In the above factual matrix, reliance has been placed on binding judicial precedent in the shape of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Indo American Jewellery Ltd. (44 Taxmann.Com 310 08/01/2013) subsequently followed by Hon’ble court in CIT V/s M/s Livingstones (ITA No. 887 of 2014 dated 28/11/2016) as well as Mumbai Tribunal in Frost & Sullivan India Pvt. Ltd. (IT(TP) Nos. 6721/Mum/2010 & 2290/Mum/2017 dated 18/06/2019). The copies of the same has been placed on record. The Ld. DR submitted that no factual finding shave been rendered by the lower authorities in this regard.

3.

We have heard and considered the respective arguments.

4.

Upon perusal of para-4 of order u/s 92CA (3) dated 31/12/2014 passed by Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer, it transpires that the assessee had submitted as under: - As a matter of business policy, the assessee neither charges any interest to its AEs and non-AE debtors nor pays any such interest to its AE and non-AE creditors.

More judgments on Section 92CA

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →