Besix Kier Dabhol, SA v. DDIT

131 ITD 299Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#13348 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

gaarimpermissible avoidance arrangementsection 111domestic companysection 90(2)benchmarking analysistax benefitwithholding taxcolourable devicecup methodtax treatysection 36(1)(iii)

Judgments citing Besix Kier Dabhol, SA v. DDIT

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

…Ds and rework the addition made u/s 92CA accordingly. It is held accordingly.” 22. As per above para, it is noted that it is noted by CIT (A) that as per the tribunal order of Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Besix Kier Dabhol, SA vs. DDIT as reported in 131 ITD 299 in which the issue was decided in favour of the assessee on this basis that in the absence of specific Thin capitalization Rules in India, recharacterization of Debt Capital as equity Capital and disregarding of interest is not in order. We reproduce the relevant paras of this tribunal order i.e. para 18 to 30. “18. That takes us to objection of…

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

…Ds and rework the addition made u/s 92CA accordingly. It is held accordingly.” 22. As per above para, it is noted that it is noted by CIT (A) that as per the tribunal order of Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Besix Kier Dabhol, SA vs. DDIT as reported in 131 ITD 299 in which the issue was decided in favour of the assessee on this basis that in the absence of specific Thin capitalization Rules in India, recharacterization of Debt Capital as equity Capital and disregarding of interest is not in order. We reproduce the relevant paras of this tribunal order i.e. para 18 to 30. “18. That takes us to objection of…

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

…CDs and rework the addition made u/s 92CA accordingly. It is held accordingly." 22. As per above para, it is noted that it is noted by CIT (A) that as per the tribunal order of Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Besix Kier Dabhol, SA vs. DDIT as reported in 131 ITD 299 in which the issue was decided in favour of the assessee on this basis that in the absence of specific Thin capitalization Rules in India, recharacterization of Debt Capital as equity Capital and disregarding of interest is not in order. We reproduce the relevant paras of this tribunal order i.e. para 18 to 30. "18. That takes us to objection of…

M/S Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2240/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…ench of the Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.2060/Bang/2016 and others in the case of M/s. CAE Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., vide order dated 25.07.2019, wherein they have followed the Tribunal Order of the Mumbai Bench Besix Kier Dbhol, SA Vs. DDIT as reported in 131 ITD 299 in page 39 and observed that as under: ITA Nos.2239 and 2240/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 16 “22. As per above para, it is noted that it is noted by CIT (A) that as per the tribunal order of Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Besix Kier Dabhol, SA vs. DDIT as reported in 131 ITD 299 in which the issue was decided in favour of the assessee on this basis…

M/S Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2239/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…ench of the Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.2060/Bang/2016 and others in the case of M/s. CAE Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., vide order dated 25.07.2019, wherein they have followed the Tribunal Order of the Mumbai Bench Besix Kier Dbhol, SA Vs. DDIT as reported in 131 ITD 299 in page 39 and observed that as under: ITA Nos.2239 and 2240/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 16 “22. As per above para, it is noted that it is noted by CIT (A) that as per the tribunal order of Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Besix Kier Dabhol, SA vs. DDIT as reported in 131 ITD 299 in which the issue was decided in favour of the assessee on this basis…

M/S Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, Both the C

ITA 84/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

…CDs and rework the addition made u/s 92CA accordingly. It is held accordingly.” 22. As per above para, it is noted that it is noted by CIT (A) that as per the tribunal order of Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Besix Kier Dabhol, SA vs. DDIT as reported in 131 ITD 299 in which the issue was decided in favour of the assessee on this basis that in the absence of specific Thin capitalization Rules in India, recharacterization of Debt Capital as equity Capital and disregarding of interest is not in order. We reproduce the relevant paras of this tribunal order i.e. para 18 to 30. “18. That takes us to objection of…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cae Flight Training Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Both the C

ITA 63/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

…CDs and rework the addition made u/s 92CA accordingly. It is held accordingly.” 22. As per above para, it is noted that it is noted by CIT (A) that as per the tribunal order of Mumbai Bench rendered in the case of Besix Kier Dabhol, SA vs. DDIT as reported in 131 ITD 299 in which the issue was decided in favour of the assessee on this basis that in the absence of specific Thin capitalization Rules in India, recharacterization of Debt Capital as equity Capital and disregarding of interest is not in order. We reproduce the relevant paras of this tribunal order i.e. para 18 to 30. “18. That takes us to objection of…

Besix Kier Dabhol, SA v. DDIT (131 ITD 299) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax