ACIT v. Pahilajrai Jaikishin

157 ITD 1187Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#22801 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Pahilajrai Jaikishin

DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shamrock Pharmachemi P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 862/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 40

…s reported in 330 taxmann.com 602 (f) Decision of Hon‘ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Farida Leather company reported in 238 taxmann.com 473 (g) Decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Pahilajarai Jaikishan reprted in 157 ITD 1187 (Mum Trib.) 6. It is not in dispute that the non-resident agents to whom commission was paid by the assessee have rendered services outside India for sale of the goods of the assessee outside India. It is not in dispute that the said non-resident agents do not have any PE in India and that they are domiciled in U.K and USA. In view of these fact…

ITO 12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Keshma Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 767/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer- Vs. M/S. Keshma Impex Pvt.Ltd 12(3)(2) P-28, M.R. Housing Society Room No.147A, 1St Floor Relief Road, Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Raheja College M.K.Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 054 Pan/Gir No.Aabck5728R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.54/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.767/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Keshma Impex Pvt.Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer- P-28, M.R. Housing Society 12(3)(2) Room No.147A, 1St Floor Relief Road, Opp. Raheja College Aayakar Bhavan Santacruz (W) M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 054 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aabck5728R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)

…exporter and had to incur export commission to various parties for procuring business outside India. We find that the ld. AR before us placed reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin reported in 157 ITD 1187 (Mum Trib.) dated 01/02/2016 wherein it has been categorically held that export commission payment made to foreign broker for rendering services abroad are not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the said foreign broker and hence, there is no requirement of deduction of tax at source on the said payment. In view of the aforesaid observati…

ACIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. Dezens Products, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5503/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 40

…5 and, thus, section 40(a)(i) were not attracted and business disallowance made was to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee]” Identical view has also been expressed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin (157 ITD 1187). Since decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue. 9 M/s. Dezens Products 12. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 05.10.2017.…