CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.

345 ITR 241High Court2012#172 most cited

What is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. authority for?

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

422

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 369,743 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. · Section 92CA · outstanding receivables · interest on outstanding receivables · TPO jurisdiction · business decision · royalty payments · arm's length price · associated enterprise benefit · pattern of delay · intra-group services

Also reported as

24 Taxmann.com 199209 Taxmann 200250 CTR 264

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 92CASection 144BSection 92CSection 234CSection 234D
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

intra group servicesinterest on outstanding receivablescup methodtested partyfar analysisworking capital adjustmentsection 92bmost appropriate methodbenchmarking analysistransactional net margin methodcomparable companiesassociated enterprises

Judgments citing CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.

D.C.I.T, Circle-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1639/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, FCA and Shri SaibalFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukuga Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rred a particular expense or not. A business enterprise incurs the expenditure on the basis of what is commercially expedient and what is not commercially expedient. As held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241/209 Taxman 200/24 taxmann.com 199 (Delhi), "Even Rule 10B(1)(a) does not authorize disallowance of any expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same". 16. The very foundation of the action of the TPO is thus devoid of legally sustainable merits. There is no dispute that the impugned pay…

D.C.I.T, Circle-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1501/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, FCA and Shri SaibalFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukuga Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rred a particular expense or not. A business enterprise incurs the expenditure on the basis of what is commercially expedient and what is not commercially expedient. As held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241/209 Taxman 200/24 taxmann.com 199 (Delhi), "Even Rule 10B(1)(a) does not authorize disallowance of any expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same". 16. The very foundation of the action of the TPO is thus devoid of legally sustainable merits. There is no dispute that the impugned pay…

Apache Footwear India Private Limited, Nellore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 568/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 270A

…any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and re-characterised the transaction. This was clearly impermissible in law as explained by this court in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.[2012] 209 Taxman 200/345 ITR 241/345 ITR 241(Delhi). 36. In another decision Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi), HIGH COURT OF DELHI held as under :- “ 33. It was similarly held in BT e-Serv (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2017] 87 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi - Trib.) as follows: "22…The argument that assessee is an interest free entity and does…

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.283/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Hp India Sales Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.24, Salarpuria Arena Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Hosur Main Road Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Arun Kumar, Cit(Tp)-2-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 28.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 13 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal Dated 22.06.2022. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing, Did Not Raise Any Specific Plea With Regard To Grounds 1 To 5, 10, 12 & 13 (Also Sub-Grounds), Hence, The Same Are Dismissed. The Surviving Grounds, Namely, Grounds 6 To 9, 11 & Its Sub-Grounds, Read As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Arun Kumar, CIT(TP)-2-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM IT(TP)A No.283/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/s.HP India Sales Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.24, Salarpuria Arena of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(1) v. Bangalore. Hosur Main Road Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030. PAN : AAACC9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Arun Kumar, CIT(TP)-2-DR Date of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 Date of Hearing : 06.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assess…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3317/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण चे"ई “डी” "ायपीठम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCHES “D” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / IT(TP)A No’s.84 to 86/CHNY/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/s.AB Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 and 219, Vs of Income-tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAECA 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अ…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3316/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण चे"ई “डी” "ायपीठम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCHES “D” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / IT(TP)A No’s.84 to 86/CHNY/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/s.AB Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 and 219, Vs of Income-tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAECA 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अ…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3315/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण चे"ई “डी” "ायपीठम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCHES “D” :: CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / IT(TP)A No’s.84 to 86/CHNY/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/s.AB Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 and 219, Vs of Income-tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAECA 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अ…

Global Logic India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Tpo-2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…s, any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and re-characterised the transaction. This was clearly impermissible in law as explained by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. EKL Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi)." Accordingly, the conclusion drawn by the Id. DR that the margin of the appellant ought to be far higher than the working capital adjusted margin of comparable companies, in order to apply the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Kusum Healthcare, is farfetched and erroneous. In the following case, the adjustment on a…

Thyssenkrupp Idustrial Solutions (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purpose as per above terms

ITA 1957/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Thyssenkrupp Industrial V. Dcit – Range – 15(3)(1) Solutions (India) Private Limited Room No. 451, 4Th Floor {Formerly Known As Uhde India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Private Limited} Mumbai - 400020 Uhde House, L.B.S. Marg Vikhroli (W), Mumbai - 400083 Pan: Aaacu1416H Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri M.M. Golvala & Shri H. Jamshedji Revenue Represented By : Shri Samual Pitta

Section 144CSection 234BSection 234D

…section 37 of the Act. Further, accrual of benefit to assessee or the commercial expediency of any expenditure incurred by the assessee cannot be the basis for disallowing the same, as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del.). 12. We further find that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Lever India Exports Ltd. [2017] 246 Taxmann 133 (Bombay), observed as under: “7. We note that the Tribunal has recorded the fact that the respondent assessee has launched new products which involved huge advertisement expenditure. The sharing of such expenditure by the…

Aquity Solutions India Pvt.Ltd(Formerly Known As Mmodal Global Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Ci.T.15(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 713/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande
Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)

…any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and re-characterised the transaction. This was clearly impermissible in law as explained by this court in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.[2012] 209 Taxman 200/345 ITR 241/345 ITR 241(Delhi).” 14. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Kusum Healthcare (P) Ltd. (supra), we find no merit in the adjustment made by the TPO/AO on account of outstanding receivables in respect of transaction pertaining to provision of IT and IT enabled services, when margin of assessee was fou…

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…again would be yielding tax revenue to this country? (Included in 7) 9.29 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT v/s EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241) wherein it has been held that recharacterisation of transaction is permissible in exceptional circumstances as that of assessee as under? (Included in 7) Two exceptions have been allowed to the aforesaid principle and they are- (i) where the economic substance of a transaction differs from its form ;and (ii) where the form and substance of the t…

ACIT -3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…again would be yielding tax revenue to this country? (Included in 7) 9.29 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT v/s EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241) wherein it has been held that recharacterisation of transaction is permissible in exceptional circumstances as that of assessee as under? (Included in 7) Two exceptions have been allowed to the aforesaid principle and they are- (i) where the economic substance of a transaction differs from its form ;and (ii) where the form and substance of the t…

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…ncurred a particular expense or not. A business enterprise incurs the expenditure on the basis of what is commercially expedient and what is not commercially expedient. As held by Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs EKL Appliances Limited (345 ITR 241), “Even Rule 10B(1)(a) does not authorise disallowance of any expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same”. M/s. Merck Specialties Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.2056/Mum./2016 16. The very foundation of the action of the TPO is thus devoid of legally sustainable merits. There is no dispute that th…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 vs. M/S Boeing India Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/71/2022HC Delhi11 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 195Section 40Section 40ASection 92B

…comparables, any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and re- characterised the transaction. This was clearly impermissible in law as explained by this court in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd., (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi). Consequently, the court is unable to find any error in the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal giving rise to any substantial question of law for determination. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” 11. As far as disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is concerned, this Court finds that there is no dispute that…

Ineos Styrolution India Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 330/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ms. Sonal PandeyFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 156Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…section 37 of the Act. Further, accrual of benefit to assessee or the commercial expediency of any expenditure incurred by the assessee cannot be the basis for disallowing the same, as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del.). In our considered view, the assessee has been able to demonstrate, with substantial supporting material that it availed India specific services from its Head Office / Regional Office. The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer in view has taken a rather restrictive view in coming to the conclusion that no services were rendered for which any indepe…

Royal Canin India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre/Asst CIT-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1298/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 1298/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Royal Canin India Private Limited, 1401&1402 F Wing, 14Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Cts Nos. 185/A, Graham Firth Compund Western Highway, Goregaon(E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan: Aadcr-4417-J ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -3(1)(1) Room No.607, 6Th Floor,, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Khirendra M. Gupta With Shri Akhil Goel. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta with Shri Akhil GoelFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 271G

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ जे ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 1298/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Royal Canin India Private Limited, 1401&1402 F Wing, 14th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, CTS Nos. 185/A, Graham Firth Compund Western Highway, Goregaon(E), Mumbai 400 063 PAN: AADCR-4417-J ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -3(1)(1) Room No.607, 6th Floor,, Aaykar Bhavan,…

Watermarke Residency Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 740/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri CA Raghunathan KannanFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR and Ms. N. Swapna

…that it is not appropriate on the part of the TPO or on the part of ld.DR to recharacterize the instrument of FCCD. The ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders reported in 288 ITR 1 and E.K.L Appliances reported in 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) [TS-206-HC-2012(DEL)-TP] to buttress his argument. It was the contention of the assessee that the AO / TPO cannot sit in the arm-chair of the assessee and change the nature of the transaction. It was submitted that the FCCD was a hybrid instrument and was considered to be an equity document by virtue of RBI Circular and therefore, the cha…

Watermark Residency Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 1591/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri CA Raghunathan KannanFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR and Ms. N. Swapna

…that it is not appropriate on the part of the TPO or on the part of ld.DR to recharacterize the instrument of FCCD. The ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders reported in 288 ITR 1 and E.K.L Appliances reported in 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) [TS-206-HC-2012(DEL)-TP] to buttress his argument. It was the contention of the assessee that the AO / TPO cannot sit in the arm-chair of the assessee and change the nature of the transaction. It was submitted that the FCCD was a hybrid instrument and was considered to be an equity document by virtue of RBI Circular and therefore, the cha…

Watermark Residency Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 1590/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri CA Raghunathan KannanFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR and Ms. N. Swapna

…that it is not appropriate on the part of the TPO or on the part of ld.DR to recharacterize the instrument of FCCD. The ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders reported in 288 ITR 1 and E.K.L Appliances reported in 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) [TS-206-HC-2012(DEL)-TP] to buttress his argument. It was the contention of the assessee that the AO / TPO cannot sit in the arm-chair of the assessee and change the nature of the transaction. It was submitted that the FCCD was a hybrid instrument and was considered to be an equity document by virtue of RBI Circular and therefore, the cha…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 17/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35

…ave incurred a particular expense or not. A business enterprise incurs the expenditure on the basis of what is commercially expedient and what is not commercially expedient. As held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [(2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del)] "Even Rule 10B(l)(a) does not authorize disallowance of any expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same". The very foundation of the action of the TPO is thus devoid of legally sustainable merits. We have also noted that there is no mark up in the reimbursement of expenses, and,…