CIT v. Ahmadabad Stamp Future Association

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2666/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Bajaj Auto Ltd., 2nd floor, Bajaj Bhawan, 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN NO. AADCB 2923 M Appellant Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3 Room No. 612, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Respondent Assessee by : Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ms. Vasanti Patel Revenue by : Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR : Mr. Aditya Rai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing Dat…

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarbajaj Auto Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Vs. Ofincome-Tax, Officer, Circle 3(4), Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aadcb2923M Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondednt Assessee Represented By Ms. Vasantiben Patel, Advocate Department Represented By Shri. Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13/03/2025 For Assessment Year 2021-22. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) In Respect Of Target Discount, Consistency Discount & Cash Discount Provided To Spare Parts Dealers: Rs. 55,18,08,851: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs. 55,18,08,851 Under Section 40(A)(Ia), For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source Under Section 194H, Computed At 30% Of The Following Discounts Provided To Spare Parts Dealers: (A) Target Discount Of Rs. 90,72,94,817; (B) Consistency Discount Of Rs. 72,72,96,107; & (C) Cash Discount Of Rs. 20,47,71,915. In Doing So, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In The Following Respects: 2. In Incorrectly Observing That The Appellant Has Paid Commissionto Its Dealers Under The Cover Of Sales Discounts. 3. In Observing The Appellant Is Offering Discounts On Completion Of Periodic Targets Which Is Computed As A Percentage Of Sales Turnover & Therefore Akin To Commission.

…and provision of section 194H is not applicable. The assessee also relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Intervet India (P) ltd. [2014]49 taxmann.com14 (Bombay), decision of Supreme Court in CIT(A) Vs Ahmadabad Stamp Vendors Association [2012] 348 ITR 378(SC) and Mumbai Tribunal in Asus India Pvt ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA 7831/Mum/2019. The reply of assessee was not accepted by AO. The AO was of the view that discount is given from the gross price and it occurs at the instance of sale and purchase between manufacturer and the distributor/ dealer. Whereas, commission is in the nature of refund and compen…

DCIT(TDS) -2(3) MUMBAI, PEDDER ROAD, CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI vs. NRB BEARING LIMITED, FORT, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

…ity was in the nature of discount in transaction of sale and, therefore, Section 194H of the said Act had no application to the said transaction. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association (348 ITR 378). In that view of the matter, the appeal came to be allowed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 8. We have heard Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, learned DR for the appellant and Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh learned counsels for respondent. Perused record. 9. It is submitted by the learned DR that the decision in EPCOS India (…

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE LD. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ ITO, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asus India Private Limited The Learned. 402, Supreme Chambers, Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito 17-18 Shah Industrial Estate, Room No.305, Ara Centre 2-E Veera Desai Road, Vs. Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi, Andheri (West), Delhi-110055 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajca6450C Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023

…ally unsustainable. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions :— (i) Ahmedabad Stamp Vendor Association v. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 202; (ii) CIT v. Ahmedabad Stamp Vendor Association [2012] 348 ITR 378; (iii) CIT v. United Breweries Ltd. , [2017] 387 ITR 150; and (iv) CIT v. Intervate India Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 364 ITR 238. ITA No. 2427/Mum/2022; Asus India Private Ltd; 2018-19 9. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, the contract betwee…

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 9 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

…ally unsustainable. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:- i) Ahmedabad Stamp Vendor Association v/s Union of India, [2002] 257 ITR 202; ii) CIT v/s Ahmedabad Stamp Vendor Association, [2012] 348 ITR 378; iii) CIT v/s United Breweries Ltd., [2017] 387 ITR 150; and iv) CIT v/s Intervate India Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 364 ITR 238. 5 M/s. Asus India Pvt. Ltd., 9. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, the contract between the parties are not conc…

ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE- 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.942/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) ITA no.943/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2016–17) ASUS India Pvt. Ltd. 402, Supreme Chambrs 17–18, Shah Industrial Estate ……………. Appellant Veera Desai Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 053 PAN – AAJCA6450C v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–9(1)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Harit Date of Hearing – 03.09.2020 Date of Order – 05.10.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT…