Boston Scientific International BV India v. ADIT

40 SOT 11Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#10595 most cited

What is Boston Scientific International BV India v. ADIT authority for?

Interest on outstanding payables to associated enterprises should reduce interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises, and delay in receipt of receivables is not a separate international transaction. The interest cost can be factored into the sale price.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Boston Scientific International BV India · 40 SOT 11 · interest on payables · interest on receivables · associated enterprises · delay in receipt · international transaction · transfer pricing adjustment

Sections most often in play

Section 10A(a)Section 10B(1)Section 10B(e)Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Judgments citing Boston Scientific International BV India v. ADIT

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 346/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

…reduced by interest payable on outstanding payables to the Associated Enterprises. To substantiate the said contentions the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the following judgments:- Goodyear India Ltd. " Boston Scientific International BV India (40 SOT 11) (2010) " Technimont JCB Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 487/Mum/2014) " Contitech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 370/Del/2015) 13. Further contended that, the delay in receipt of receivable is not a separate international transaction and relied on the decision made in Principal CIT Vs. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 765/Del/2016) and the Avenue Asia A…

Goodyear India Ltd, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

…reduced by interest payable on outstanding payables to the Associated Enterprises. To substantiate the said contentions the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the following judgments:- Goodyear India Ltd. " Boston Scientific International BV India (40 SOT 11) (2010) " Technimont JCB Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 487/Mum/2014) " Contitech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 370/Del/2015) 13. Further contended that, the delay in receipt of receivable is not a separate international transaction and relied on the decision made in Principal CIT Vs. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 765/Del/2016) and the Avenue Asia A…

Tecnimont Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range 13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5427/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 92B(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA No. 1238 & 5427/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Tecnimont Private Limited, Vs. A.C.I.T.-13(3)(2), 2nd Tecnimont House, Chincholi Room No. 229, Bunder, 504, Link Road, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. PAN/GIR No. AAACI 2628 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M.P. Lohia (AR) Revenue by Shri Udal Raj Singh (DR) Date of Hearing 06/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement 08/ 01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. These are the appeals fi…

Technimont P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1238/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 92B(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA No. 1238 & 5427/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Tecnimont Private Limited, Vs. A.C.I.T.-13(3)(2), 2nd Tecnimont House, Chincholi Room No. 229, Bunder, 504, Link Road, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. PAN/GIR No. AAACI 2628 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M.P. Lohia (AR) Revenue by Shri Udal Raj Singh (DR) Date of Hearing 06/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement 08/ 01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. These are the appeals fi…

Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1433/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tock is 0.01% and 0.025% on sales and cost of goods respectively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on th…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1416/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tock is 0.01% and 0.025% on sales and cost of goods respectively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on th…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1399/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tock is 0.01% and 0.025% on sales and cost of goods respectively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on th…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 388/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tock is 0.01% and 0.025% on sales and cost of goods respectively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on th…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 387/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tock is 0.01% and 0.025% on sales and cost of goods respectively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on th…

M/S Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl..Ci.T., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 268/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

…tock is 0.01% and 0.025% on sales and cost of goods respectively. In support of his contention that such difference should be allowed as business expenditure. He relied upon the following decisions: i) Boston Scientific International BV India vs. ADIT (2010) 40 SOT 11(Mum.Tri.), ii) CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 211 (Raj.), iii) CIT vs. Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. (2008) 175 Taxman 286 (Delhi), iv) Emersons Process Management India P.Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 47 SOT 157 (Mum.Tri.) v) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 133 Taxman 740 (Bom.) (iii) The learned Departmental Representative, on th…

Boston Scientific International BV India v. ADIT (40 SOT 11) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax