CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.

378 ITR 57High Court2015#255 most cited

What is CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. authority for?

0.5% is determined as the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for corporate guarantee commission provided to Associated Enterprises for A.Y. 2011-12, using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act. Subsequent cases note this rate is specific to its facts and assessment year, requiring contemporaneous data for other periods.

304

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. · Everest Kanto · Section 92C · Section 92B · corporate guarantee commission · Arm's Length Price · ALP 0.5% · CUP method · associated enterprises · transfer pricing benchmarking · guarantee fee

Also reported as

58 Taxmann.com 254232 Taxmann 307

Sections most often in play

Section 92BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 115JBSection 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 92CASection 92CA(3)

Issues it is cited on

corporate guaranteesafe harbour rulessection 92b(1)safe harboursection 92bsection 92fcup methodassociated enterprisessection 92c(3)retrospective amendmentbenchmarking analysissection 92ca(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED - INDIA BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4580/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…6 FirstRand Bank Ltd. AY 2020-21 Union Bank of India 1.20% HDFC Bank 1.80% IDBI 2.00% State Bank of India 2.10% ICICI 2.50% Median 1.80% 6.1. He thus, after considering the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Everest Canto Cylinders Ltd. 378 ITR 57 2015 (Bom) and the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 191 (Mum) made a downward adjustment of 0.25% to the naked quotes of the rates of bank guarantee of 1.8%, to arrive at the benchmarking of the transaction. He thus, arrived at a rate of 1.55% as the average ba…

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7487/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Australia and New Zealand Deputy Commissioner of Banking Group Ltd. Income-tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (PAN : AAICA3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal…

ACITLTU-2, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 945/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

…ion to Section 92B, the guarantees issued by an assessee has been clarified to be in the nature of international transaction. We note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254/232 Taxman 307/378 ITR 57 (Bombay) has considered identical issue in light of the provisions of Section 92B and the Explanation, came to a conclusion that the corporate guarantee issued by an entity on behalf of its AE is an international transaction. We further note that, this identical issue came up before the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Pr. C…

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 895/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

…ion to Section 92B, the guarantees issued by an assessee has been clarified to be in the nature of international transaction. We note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254/232 Taxman 307/378 ITR 57 (Bombay) has considered identical issue in light of the provisions of Section 92B and the Explanation, came to a conclusion that the corporate guarantee issued by an entity on behalf of its AE is an international transaction. We further note that, this identical issue came up before the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Pr. C…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI, DELHI vs. HAVELLS INDIA LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4740/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Havells India Ltd. 904, 9Th Floor, Kg Marg, Surya Central Circle-17 Delhi Kiran Building, New Delhi Pan No. Aaach0351E

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801CSection 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2010-11 DCIT Vs. Havells India Ltd. 904, 9th Floor, KG Marg, Surya Central Circle-17 Delhi Kiran Building, New Delhi PAN No. AAACH0351E Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR Respondent Sh. Akshat Jain, AR Date of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-44 dated 07.04.2025 for the…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds of appeal of Revenue are dismissed”

ITA 1217/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

…on record. We find that Id. CIT(A) has restricted the rate of corporate guarantee to 0.5% or actual cost incurred by the assessee + 10% mark up after following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom). However, the ITAT in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2014-15 vide ITA No. 2025/Mum/2021 and C.O. No. 55/Mum/2022 has held as under: “31. From the above observation, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Id. TPO for the purpose of applying any of the prescribed methods for determining the A…

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1150/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

…on record. We find that ld. CIT(A) has restricted the rate of corporate guarantee to 0.5% or actual cost incurred by the assessee + 10% mark up after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom). However, the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2014-15 vide ITA No. 2025/Mum/2021 and C.O. No. 55/Mum/2022 has held as under: “31. From the above observation, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Id. TPO for the purpose of applying any of the prescribed methods for determining the A…

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

…on record. We find that ld. CIT(A) has restricted the rate of corporate guarantee to 0.5% or actual cost incurred by the assessee + 10% mark up after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom). However, the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2014-15 vide ITA No. 2025/Mum/2021 and C.O. No. 55/Mum/2022 has held as under: “31. From the above observation, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Id. TPO for the purpose of applying any of the prescribed methods for determining the A…

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1875/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…ue has come up before various judicial forums and corporate guarantee fee range of 0.2% to 0.5% has been found to be justified. We find support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders reported in (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom), and are inclined to give part relief to the assessee directing the TPO to compute corporate guarantee fee @ 0.5% and delete excess amount added in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. I.T.A. No.: 1875/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Tega Industries Limited. 11. Ground No…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BAHWAN CYBERTEK PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1836/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1836/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.62/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1836/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, Vs. No.148, Bahwan Cybertek It Park, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Okkiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097. [Pan: Aabcb- 2020-P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) It(Tp) A No.: 22/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, No.148, Bahwan Cybertek It Park, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Okkiyam, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600 097. [Pan: Aabcb- 2020-P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri. Ar. V. Sreenivasan, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The

For Respondent: Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…TPO on the basis of internal comparable uncontrolled price charged by the bank @ 0.85% is reasonable for benchmarking corporate guarantee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd.[2015] 58 taxmann.com 254/232 Taxman 307/378 ITR 57/277 CTR 511 had considered an identical transaction and held that 0.5% is appropriate rate for bench marking corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. (supra), we…

NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), , KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 982/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 982/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 National Engineering Industries Limited, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Birla Building - 700001 [PAN: AAACN9969L] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata - 700069 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Akkal Dudhewala, AR Department represented by : Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 27.08.2025 Date…

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [PAN: AAACA6990Q] vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 27.10.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROSY BLUE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 4284/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT Central Circle Vs. Rosy Blue (India) 8(3), Mumbai Private Limited 1608-09, Prasad Chambers Tata Road No.2 Opera House, Girgaon S.O. Mumbai- 400 004 PAN/GIR No.AACCR2413B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w. Shri Ashwin Kashinath Revenue by Shri Aditya Rai, SR. DR Date of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 28/04/2025…

ROLTA INDIA LTD. THROUGH DR. MAMTA BINANI, RP. ,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3563/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3563/Mum/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Rp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2737/Mum/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Irp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant M/S. Rolta India Ltd. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3563/MUM/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Rolta India Ltd. through Dr. Mamta Binani, RP. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22nd Street, MIDC, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 PAN: AAACR2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2737/MUM/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Rolta In…

ROLTA INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2737/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3563/Mum/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Rp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2737/Mum/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Rolta India Ltd. Through Dr. Mamta Binani, Irp. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 Pan: Aaacr2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant M/S. Rolta India Ltd. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3563/MUM/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Rolta India Ltd. through Dr. Mamta Binani, RP. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22nd Street, MIDC, Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 PAN: AAACR2711G ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2737/MUM/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Rolta In…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

…'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Redington (India) Ltd., reported in [2021] 430 ITR 298 (Mad.) (HC) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. ACIT (LTU) reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 395 (Bom.) & 378 ITR 57 and directed that AO to restrict the disallowance at 0.5% of the guarantee value. 3.2 After hearing both the parties and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the TPO's order that this is an international transaction, but upward adjustment is now covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdict…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2905/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 92B

…ion to Section 92B, the guarantees issued by an assessee has been clarified to be in the nature of international transaction. We note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254/232 Taxman 307/378 ITR 57 (Bombay) has considered identical issue in light of the provisions of Section 92B and the Explanation, came to a conclusion that the corporate guarantee issued by an entity on behalf of its AE is an international transaction. We further note that, this identical issue came up before the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Pr. C…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1663/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

…on to Section 92B, the guarantees issued by an assessee has been clarified to be in the nature of international transaction. We note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254/232 Taxman 307/378 ITR 57 (Bombay) has considered identical issue in light of the provisions of Section 92B and the Explanation, came to a conclusion that the corporate guarantee issued by an entity on behalf of its AE is an international transaction. We further note that, this identical issue came up before the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITA Nos.1402 & 1663/Chny/2024 (AY 20…

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

…ion to Section 92B, the guarantees issued by an assessee has been clarified to be in the nature of international transaction. We note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254/232 Taxman 307/378 ITR 57 (Bombay) has considered identical issue in light of the provisions of Section 92B and the Explanation, came to a conclusion that the corporate guarantee issued by an entity on behalf of its AE is an international transaction. We further note that, this identical issue came up before the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Pr. C…

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP PROTECTION LTD.,MOHALI vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 316/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 316/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Punjab Chemicals & Crop Protection Ltd. Addl. Cit बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road, Range-1 Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Chandigarh Vs. District Sas Nagar Mohali-140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anil Khanna (Ca). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Khanna (CA). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…efore, this transaction would be an international transaction for which Arm’s Length Price is to be computed. Considering various judicial decisions holding the field including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (58 Taxmann.com 254) wherein Hon’ble Court has upheld charging of rate of 0.5% by the assessee, we direct Ld. AO to compute the ALP of these transactions by accepting rate of 0.5%. The corresponding grounds stand partly allowed. Taking the same view, we direct Ld. AO to adopt ALP rate of 0.5%. This ground stands partly allowed. 5. Set-off of brought forward…

Showing 1–20 of 304 · Page 1 of 16

...
CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (378 ITR 57) — Cited in 304 Judgments | BharatTax