MATRIX CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the TPO's adjustment for guarantee commission was based on a wrong presumption and was flawed. It also ruled that the entire commission paid for the sale of property was allowable as transfer expenses. For Section 14A, the disallowance should be computed only on dividend-bearing investments.
What were the facts?
The assessee company incurred expenses on behalf of its Associated Enterprise (AE) and sought reimbursement. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made an adjustment on account of guarantee commission, which was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee also challenged disallowances related to commission on sale of property and expenses related to dividend income.
What were the issues?
Whether the transfer pricing adjustment for guarantee commission was justified, and whether the entire commission paid for property sale and expenses related to dividend income were allowable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT1,596 citing402 ITR 640 · 2018 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.69 citing398 ITR 439 · 2010 · HC
- Tejas Network Ltd. v. DCIT41 citing60 Taxmann.com 309 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:
The Assessee Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (f
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.
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
- Bellsonica Auto Component India Private… vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), GurgaonITA 1041/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Smartstream Technologies India Private… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2220/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Airmeet Networks Private Limited, Bengaluru vs Assessing Officer, BengaluruITA 1487/BANG/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026