CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

128 ITR 294Supreme Court of India1981#92 most cited

What is CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty authority for?

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

628

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty · 128 ITR 294 · Section 45 · Section 48 · Section 55(2) · cost of acquisition · capital gains computation · machinery provision · unascertainable cost · intangible assets · taxability of goodwill · no tax without machinery

Also reported as

5 Taxmann 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 92BSection 234BSection 45Section 55(2)Section 143(2)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 211section 55section 32(1)(ii)section 21section 92bsection 32(1)intangible assetssection 48section 45book profitsfair market valuesection 115j

Judgments citing CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6228/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2013-14
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

…ITR 325 (Bom) dated 11/12/2014. b) Decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Cadell Weaving Mill Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 273 ITR 1 (SC) c) Decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Srinivasa Setty (B.C.) reported in 128 ITR 294 (SC). d) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kailash Jyoti No.2 CHS Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.1607 of 2013 ; Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pushpendra J. Mehta & Ors. in Income Tax Appeal No.768 of 2009 ; 8 M/s.Batloboi Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shankar Mahal Premises CHS L…

Pepsico India Holdongs Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-07, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 113/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 113/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Level 3-6, Pioneer Square, Central Circle-07, Sector-62, Golf Course, Extension New Delhi Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122101 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp1272G

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92F

…for use or sale and the intention is to complete the intangible asset for use or sale is shown or how the intangible asset generate probable future benefits, etc. The aforesaid position finds recognition and was accepted in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC), a relating transfer to goodwill. Goodwill, it was held, was a capital asset and denotes benefits arising from connection and reputation. A variety of elements go into its making and the composition varies in different trades, different businesses in the same trade, as one element may pre-dominate one business, another element may dominate i…

The United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1956/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2021AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…econditions for application of section 115JB. The Ld. AO erred by ignoring the order of the CIT(A) in the A.years 97 erred by ignoring the order of the CIT(A) in the A.years 97-98 98 and 2001-02 in which by following the decision of the Supreme Court cited in 128 ITR 294 held which by following the decision of the Supreme Court cited in 128 ITR 294 held which by following the decision of the Supreme Court cited in 128 ITR 294 held that provisions of section 115J, 115jB are not applicable. According to the AR the that provisions of section 115J, 115jB are not applicable. According to the AR the that provisions of…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7376/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92F

…cessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance.' In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC) ; [2002-TIOL-587-SC-IT-LB] and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 75 (SC) make this position explicit. Therefore, where the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expense with an ascertainable price is unable to be shown to exist, even if such price is nil, Chapter X provisions cannot be invoked to undertake a transfer…

Jx Nippon Two Lubricants India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4985/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4985/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2015-16 & Sa No. 985/Del/2019 :Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jx Nippon Two Lubricants India Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., Unit No. 1003, 10Th Floor, Vatika Circle-2(1), City Point, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj3601L Assessee By :Sh. Nageswarrao, Adv. Revenue By:Sh. Vedprakash Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing:13.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. NageswarRao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. VedPrakash Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…case of Areva T&D India Ltd. &Ors. Vs. DCIT (345 ITR 421) has discussed the nature of goodwill and the relevant discussion is extracted as under: 42. In this regard, it would not be out of place to refer to the decision in CIT Vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC) wherein the concept of goodwill has been understood in the following terms: “Goodwill denotes the benefit arising from connection and reputation. The original definition by Lord Eldon in Cruttwell v. Lye [1810] 17 Ves 335 that goodwill was nothing more than “the probability that the old customers would resort to the old places” was expanded…

Kimberly Clark Lever P.Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…between the excess A&M expenses incurred by the assessee and the A&M expenses incurred by comparable entities chosen by the TPO. Finally, the Hon’ble High Court referring to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. B. C. Srinivasa Setty, 128 ITR 294 and PNB Finance Ltd. vs. CIT, 307 ITR 75 held that in the absence of any machinery provisions to compute the arm’s length price of transactions the provisions of Chapter X cannot be invoked for the purpose of making the TP adjustments. 21 31. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the issue of computation of TP adjustments should be re…

Cadbury India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2214/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Acit Range-5(1), M/S Mondelez India M. K. Road, Aayakar Foods Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, बिधम/ Bhavan, Tower-3 (Wing C), India Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Bulls Finance Centre, Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco0460H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistry & Shri Hiten Chande, Ars. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Sunil Jha, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (): The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel –Iii, Mumbai Dated 16.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistry &For Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…sary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance.” 64. In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v, CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) make this position explicit. Therefore, where the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expense with an ascertainable price is- unable to be shown to exist, even if such price is nil, Chapter X provisions cannot be invoked to undertake a TP adjustment exercise. 65. As alrea…

Smt Jamuna Vernekar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal dated

ITA/43/2013HC Karnataka10 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.43 OF 2013 BETWEEN: SMT. JAMUNA VERNEKAR #107, 2ND MAIN KORAMANGALA, I BLOCK BANGALORE-560034. .... APPELLANT (BY MR. V. CHANDRASEKHAR, ADV., FOR MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(5), R.P. BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1431/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 8o

…sary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance." 64. In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 ITA Nos.1431 &1350/Mum/2014 & ITA Nos.1925 & 1852/Mum/2015 28 A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT-10(3)/ACIT (SC) make this position explicit. Therefore, where the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expense with an ascertainable price is u…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1350/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1431 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3) Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400076

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 8o

…sary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance." 64. In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 ITA Nos.1431 &1350/Mum/2014 & ITA Nos.1925 & 1852/Mum/2015 28 A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT-10(3)/ACIT (SC) make this position explicit. Therefore, where the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expense with an ascertainable price is u…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…mmentary of Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax (11th Edition Vol.3 Pg. 5254). This position at law is further supported 104 M/s. Vajresh Consultants Ltd. (Earlier known as Essar Capital Ltd.) by the Judgment of Supreme Court in CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294), i.e. It was also submitted that where the machinery provision of section 48 breaks down consequently, the charge under section 45 also fails. In the instant case, since the amalgamating company received no consideration on the transfer of its assets, the charge under section 45 fails. Without prejudice to above, it was submitted that, in any ca…

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2434/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…sary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance." 64. In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) make this position explicit. Therefore, where the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expense with an ascertainable price Page 50 of 64 is unable to be shown to exist, even if such price is nil, Chapter X provisions cannot be invoked to undertake a TP adjustment exercise…

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3071/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)

…was not IT(TP)A No.3071/Bang/2018 The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore Page 47 of 75 possible. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court had placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (307 ITR 75). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court after referring to its earlier decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) and Whirlpool of India (P.) Ltd. (supra) had considered the question of existence of the international transaction and computation of ALP thereon in the case of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (Indi…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2227/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एफ ” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F ”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN:AAACU0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs. DCIT(LTU)-2, 29th Floor, World Trade Center, ..... ""तवाद…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2229/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एफ ” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F ”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN:AAACU0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs. DCIT(LTU)-2, 29th Floor, World Trade Center, ..... ""तवाद…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1805/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एफ ” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F ”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN:AAACU0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs. DCIT(LTU)-2, 29th Floor, World Trade Center, ..... ""तवाद…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1804/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एफ ” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F ”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN:AAACU0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs. DCIT(LTU)-2, 29th Floor, World Trade Center, ..... ""तवाद…

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2248/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 156

…the absence of machinery provisions, bringing an imagined transaction to tax was not possible. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court had placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (307 ITR 75). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court after referring to its earlier decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) and Whirlpool of India (P.) Ltd. (supra) had considered the question of existence of the international transaction and computation of ALP thereon in the case of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (Indi…

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…any application. When no amount can be computed in the light of the formula given in rule 8 D(ii) and (iii), no disallowance can be made under rule 8D (2)(ii) and (iii) either. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B C Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1, when computation provisions fail, the charging provisions cannot be applied, and by the same logic, when the computation provisions under rule 8 D (2) (ii) and (iii) fail, disallowance under the said provisions cannot be made either as the said provision is rendered unworkable.” 7. However, that does not exclude the application of ru…

M/S Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 3321/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…n the absence of machinery provisions, bringing an imagined transaction to tax was not possible. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court had placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs. B.C.SrinivasaSetty (128 ITR 294) and PNB Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT (307 ITR 75). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after referring to its earlier decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra) and Whirlpool of India (P) Ltd.,(supra) had considered the question of existence of the international transaction and computation of ALP thereon in the case of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India…