Bharti Airtel Limited v. ACIT

161 TTJ 428Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#4138 most cited

What is Bharti Airtel Limited v. ACIT authority for?

Corporate guarantees cannot be considered international transactions for the purposes of Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bharti Airtel Limited v. ACIT · 161 TTJ 428 · ITAT Delhi · corporate guarantee · international transaction · Section 92B · transfer pricing · shareholder services

Sections most often in play

Section 140A(3)Section 250Section 92B

Issues it is cited on

section 100profit split methodbright line testresale price methodsection 36(l)(va)amp expendituresection 92esection 92(1)cost plus methodsection 140acorporate guaranteefar analysis

Judgments citing Bharti Airtel Limited v. ACIT

DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Britannia Industries Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1391/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 92B

…tter “alp” component of corporate guarantee(s) involving respective adjustments of ₹2,47,79,679/-, ₹3,57,20,816/- & ₹1,96,69,635 (supra) in all the three impugned assessment years. Suffice to say, tribunal’s various decisions i.e. Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ACIT (161 TTJ 428) (ITAT Delhi), Redington India Ltd. vs. ACIT (41 ITR (T) 646) (ITAT Chennai), Micro Ink Ltd. vs. ACIT (157 ITD 132) (ITAT Ahd) and Videocoon Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT (55 taxmann.com 263) (ITAT Mumbai) unanimously hold that a corporate guarantee is not an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act. 5. Mr. Srihari veheme…

DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Britannia Industries Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1390/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 92B

…tter “alp” component of corporate guarantee(s) involving respective adjustments of ₹2,47,79,679/-, ₹3,57,20,816/- & ₹1,96,69,635 (supra) in all the three impugned assessment years. Suffice to say, tribunal’s various decisions i.e. Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ACIT (161 TTJ 428) (ITAT Delhi), Redington India Ltd. vs. ACIT (41 ITR (T) 646) (ITAT Chennai), Micro Ink Ltd. vs. ACIT (157 ITD 132) (ITAT Ahd) and Videocoon Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT (55 taxmann.com 263) (ITAT Mumbai) unanimously hold that a corporate guarantee is not an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act. 5. Mr. Srihari veheme…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1617/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…e is relating to transaction of payment of share application which does not fall within the purview of term international transaction under Section 92B. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT 161 TTJ 428. The Ld. DR could not controvert the same. Thus, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 40. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra) held as under: “35. ……………..Suffice to say that we have reached our conclusions on the basis of t…

M/S. Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2395/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…e is relating to transaction of payment of share application which does not fall within the purview of term international transaction under Section 92B. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT 161 TTJ 428. The Ld. DR could not controvert the same. Thus, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 40. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra) held as under: “35. ……………..Suffice to say that we have reached our conclusions on the basis of t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moser Baer India Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1200/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…e is relating to transaction of payment of share application which does not fall within the purview of term international transaction under Section 92B. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT 161 TTJ 428. The Ld. DR could not controvert the same. Thus, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 40. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra) held as under: “35. ……………..Suffice to say that we have reached our conclusions on the basis of t…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6042/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…e is relating to transaction of payment of share application which does not fall within the purview of term international transaction under Section 92B. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Additional CIT 161 TTJ 428. The Ld. DR could not controvert the same. Thus, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 40. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Tribunal in case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra) held as under: “35. ……………..Suffice to say that we have reached our conclusions on the basis of t…

Videocon Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1310/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Videcon Industries The Deputy Commissioner Ltd.,171-C, Mittal Court, of Income Tax, Range Vs. Nariman Point, 3(3)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021 M.K. Road, PAN: AABCV4012H Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Arvind Sonde, A.R. Revenue by : Shri N.K. Chand, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 24.02.2017 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal has b…

M/S. Sis Live, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 1313/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishisis Live Acit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Central Circle-17, Room No. Vs. Golf View Corporate Tower B, 356, E-2, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 142(1)

…t, Income, loss or assets of the assessee. In the present case, the impugned transactions are covered under lease of tangible assets and provision of services. The assessee has relied upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Bharti Airtel Vs. Addl CIT 161 TTJ 428 (Del). The facts of this case are with respect to corporate guarantee issued which was falling into the definition of any other transaction having a bearing on the profit, income, losses or assets of enterprise. In the present case the international transaction of the assessee are falling into the lease of property or provisions of services or le…