CIT v. Arun Dua

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner of Limited (Formerly known Income Tax, as Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier known as Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, LBS Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 PAN: AAACN4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly known Circle-8(2)(1)…

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner of Limited (Formerly known Income Tax, as Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier known as Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, LBS Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 PAN: AAACN4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly known Circle-8(2)(1)…

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…sition that the intention of the party entering into the agreement is to be seen and the agreement is to be read as agreed between the parties. For this the Assessee places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Arun Dua [1989] 186 ITR 494 (Page 92 to 93 of LPB). • Para A (Page 49-50 of FPB): As per this para, Service Office Provider to provide 120 Car Parking Spaces in the Basement and the exclusive right to use three Elevators having a capacity of 16 persons each as well as the Entrance located on the eastern side of the said building. Further, it is mentioned that once the bala…

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhuber India Systems Vs. The Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Private Limited Smt. K.G. Mittal Unit 41/46, Floor 3 Ayurvedic Hospital Paragon, Phoenix Market Building, City, Lbs Marg, Charni Road (West) Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcu6223H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By : Achal Sharma

…P a g e | 1 Uber India Systems pvt. Ltd. Vs. The DCIT(TDS)-2(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Uber India Systems Vs. The DCIT(TDS)-2(3) Private Limited Smt. K.G. Mittal Unit 41/46, Floor 3 Ayurvedic Hospital Paragon, Phoenix Market Building, City, LBS Marg, Charni Road (West) Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCU6223H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : J.D. Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent by : Achal Sharma Date of Hearing 09.11.2022 Date of Pronounc…

DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI vs. SOPARIWALA EXPORTS, MUMBAI

…parties and Assessing Officer cannot give his own interpretation to the contract. In this regard he placed reliance upon 15 M/s. Sopariwala Exports M/s. Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arun Dua (186 ITR 494). 16. Upon careful consideration, we note that the assessee in this case has paid commission to its overseas commission agent. Agreement has been duly submitted. Payment has been duly made to the overseas commission agents. The same is duly approved by the RBI. The Assessing Officer has questioned necessity of high rate of commission. In his opi…

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JT.CIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…he understanding of in the agreements by the the parties. It is also submitted that the parties to the parties. agreement have understood the agreement in the same way then, the AO cannot read the agreement in a diametrically opposite manner (CIT vs. Arun Dua 186 ITR 494). b) It is the argument of the Learned DR that the agreements are not to be considered for deciding the nature of transaction is unsustainable in law. The Assessee submits that the entire transaction between the Driver-Partner and Uber B.V is based on and governed by the agreements entered into between the Parties. c) The Driver-Partners are regi…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (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 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

…guments: (i) When the parties have understood and interpreted the transaction in a particular way, it is not open to the AO to give another interpretation. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Arun Dua[1990] 186 ITR 494/[1989] 45 Taxman 246 in this regard. In the case on hand, when all the parties have understood and interpreted the transaction as a valid securitization and assignment by Yes Bank in favour of trust, then it is not open to the AO to come to a contrary conclusion. (ii) Chapter XII-EA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by Finance Act, 2013 provi…

DCIT (IT) 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO. SA ( MSC), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…ticle 22 was resolved by mutual agreement whereby both the competent authorities agreed that international shipping profits of the assessee company are covered by Article 22. 15 M/s. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA (MSC) 46. In the case of CIT vs. Arun Dua 186 ITR 494, it was held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court at page 496 of the report that if an agreement between two parties has been understood in a certain way and has been acted upon by them, it would not be open to the Tax Officer to give another interpretation to the agreement. In the present context, the Indo-Swiss treaty especially the scope of Arti…

BOMBAY FORGINGS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shrir. C. Shrma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2184/Mum/2015(Ay 2007-08)

…ubsequent developments in the matter. Even as per section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, novation of contract is permissible. Reliance was placed on Polymat India P. Ltd. v. Mutual insurance Co. Ltd. (2005) 123 Corn. Cases 663 (SC)/CITv. ArunDua [1989] 186 ITR 494 (Cal.) (H Ever? as per the nova ted terms between the Appellant and Ivory, the Appellant was entitled to receive only Rs,19 crores in lieu of transfer of development rights, which has been duly offered to tax. The AO was not justified in treating Rs. 3 crores as part of sale consideration as the some was neither received by the Appellant nor ac…

ITO 25(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MITA SAMIR SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

…e Revenue. For this proposition, he referred to the following case laws:  Polymat India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. [2005] 9 SCC 174  Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. vs. Jain Studios Ltd. [2006] 2 SCC 628  CIT vs. Arundua [1990] 186 ITR 494 (Cal)(HC) (496) 15. The ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that the case laws relied upon the Assessing Officer are clearly distinguishable on facts. 16. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that in the present case, the assessee is a lady engaged in chemical trade. Initially she had given q…

DCIT (IT) 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MSC MEDITERANEAN SHIPPING CO. SA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit(It)3(2)(2), Mumbai – Vs. M/S. Msc Mediterranean 400 038 Shipping Co. Sa C/O. Msc Agency India (India) Pvt. Ltd., Msc House, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri – East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccm4945P Appellant) .. Respondent) Co No.137/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year :2011-12) M/S. Msc Vs. Dcit(It)3(2)(2), Mumbai – 400 Mediterranean Shipping 038 Co. Sa C/O. Msc Agency India (India) Pvt. Ltd., Msc House, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri – East, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaccm4945P Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri Narendra Kumar Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar

…a and the doubt arising as to the interpretation of Article 22was resolved by mutual agreement whereby both the competent authorities agreed that international shipping profits of the assessee company are covered by Article 46. In the case of CIT vs. Arun Dua 186 ITR 494, it was held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court at page 496 of the report that if an agreement between two parties has been understood in a certain way and has been acted upon by them, it would not be open to the Tax Officer to give another interpretation to the agreement. In the present context, the Indo-Swiss treaty especially the scope of Arti…

GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE INTERNATIONAL, INC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) -3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Ashwani Taneja () - 2009-10 - 2011-12 Gemological Institute Dy.Cit 2(2)(1), Mumbai International Inc, C/O Gia India Laboratory P Ltd, 10Th Floor, Trade Centre, Bandra Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aadcg6758M Appellant Respondent

…cular manner, then AO can forcibly infuse his distinct understanding of the same which may run contrary to what parties have understood. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Arun Dua 186 ITR 494 (Cal). Thus, he simply argued that there were no basis to treat the expenses as part of income. He also drew our attention upon the copy of transfer pricing study report and order passed by the TPO in the case of GIA India to show that no profit element was involved in the amount paid by it to the assessee on account of reimbursement of expenses.…

DDIT (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. KPMG, MUMBAI

In the result the cross objection filed by assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Jason. P. Boaz & Shri Pawan Singhdcit -3 (1), M/S Kpmg Room No. 136, 1St Floor, C/O Kpmg House, Scindia House, N.M. Road, Kamala Mills Compound, 448, Vs. Ballard Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400038 Parel Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaafk1415H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…s income” of associated enterprises of assessee as defined under Article 7 of India- Netherland tax treaty. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied upon the decision in D.S. Bist versus CIT [1984] 149 ITR 276(Delhi); CIT versus Arun Dua [1990] 186 ITR 494 (Calcutta); CIT versus Sheraton International Inc [2009] 313 ITR 267(Delhi) and [2012] 150 TTJ 523(Delhi); Baas International holding NV versus JCIT ITA No. 4341/M/2002 and Six Continents Hotel Inc Vs DCIT [2011] 46 SOT 979 (Mumbai). On the ratio of ‘principle of mutuality’ learned Senior Advocate relied on as many as on 28 leading cases decided…

ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIZATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 14I, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

…ng arguments: (i) When the parties have understood and interpreted the transaction in a particular way, it is not open to the AO to give another interpretation. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arun Dua 186 ITR 494 (Cal.) in this regard. In the case on hand, when all the parties have understood and interpreted the transaction as a valid securitization and assignment by Yes Bank in favour of trust, then it is not open to the AO to come to a contrary conclusion. (ii) Chapter XII-EA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by Finance Act, 2013 provides that for s…

QUANTIUM ADVISORS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 1(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhquantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., 503, Regent Chamber, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan:Aaacq 0281C ... Appellant Vs.

…o canvassed that the agreement between assessee and QIEF has been duly acted upon and, therefore, it cannot be disbelieved by the Revenue and in this regard reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Arun Dua, 186 ITR 494(Cal). Emphasizing on the adequacy of infrastructural and other facilities available with QIEF to render services to assessee, Ld. Representative for the assessee also referred to Pages 242 to 298 of Paper Book, wherein is placed copies of the Annual Accounts of QIEF for years ending 31/12/2010 and 31/12/2011. By referring to the relevant portions…

RASHMI M DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…h proposition. Learned Authorised Representative relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Polymat India Pvt. Ltd. v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., [2005] 9 SCC 174 and the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v/s Arun Dua, [1990] 186 ITR 494 (Cal.). 6 Smt. Rashmi M. Dhanani He submitted, even payment of stamp duty on amenities agreement is not mandatory. He, therefore submitted, the indexed cost of acquisition shown by the assessee is to be accepted. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, as builder provides flats for lower income group, the assessee has to agree to the condi…