CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.

The Great Eastern Shipping Co., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG.5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

…ng upon the extent and duration of facility availed. Taking note of wide-ranging guarantee commission rates being charged by different banks, we adopt guarantee commission rate approved by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd., 378 ITR 57(Bom), i.e 0.55%.We uphold guarantee commission charged by the assessee at 0.55%. Hence, no 18 adjustment is warranted on this issue. The, assessee succeeds on ground No.22 to 24 of the appeal. 24. In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 11th day of August, 202…

Dy CIT, Cir-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. S. Kumars Nationwide Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…21, held that providing guarantee is an international transaction and guarantee commission has to be charged on such transaction. The learned CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 57 (Bom.), directed computation of guarantee commission at 0.5%. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. During the course of hearing, learned DR vehemently relied upon the order passed by the TPO. 10. We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved aga…

Dy CIT, Cir-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. S. Kumars Nationwide Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…21, held that providing guarantee is an international transaction and guarantee commission has to be charged on such transaction. The learned CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 57 (Bom.), directed computation of guarantee commission at 0.5%. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. During the course of hearing, learned DR vehemently relied upon the order passed by the TPO. 10. We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved aga…

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. The Bombay Dyeing Addl. CIT/ DCIT, & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Range/Circle – 2(1), Neville House, Room No.561, Vs. J.N. Heredia Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & ITA Nos.3299 &2779/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 ACIT/ DCIT, M/s. The Bombay Dyeing Range/Circle – 2(1)(1), & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Room No.5…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. The Bombay Dyeing Addl. CIT/ DCIT, & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Range/Circle – 2(1), Neville House, Room No.561, Vs. J.N. Heredia Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & ITA Nos.3299 &2779/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 ACIT/ DCIT, M/s. The Bombay Dyeing Range/Circle – 2(1)(1), & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Room No.5…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. The Bombay Dyeing Addl. CIT/ DCIT, & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Range/Circle – 2(1), Neville House, Room No.561, Vs. J.N. Heredia Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & ITA Nos.3299 &2779/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2013-14 ACIT/ DCIT, M/s. The Bombay Dyeing Range/Circle – 2(1)(1), & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Room No.5…

Rolta India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 763/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Rolta India Ltd. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai 400 093 Pan: Aaacr-2711-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.1(1), Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexure, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Shekhar Gupta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalla Jha

…mmission @1.418%, We find that this issue was in dispute in assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14. In assessment year 2012-13 the CIT(A) following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Everest 3 Kento Cylinders Ltd., 378 ITR 57 restricted the corporate guarantee commission rate to 0.5%. Against the findings of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.882/Mum/2017 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench upheld the findings of CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of Revenue. Similarly, in the assessment year 2013-14, the C1T(A) restricted the corporate guarante…

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 5 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

…orities as well as before us : Particulars Guarantee Commission rate 1 Everest Kento Cylinder Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 0.5 34 CCH 0528 (Mum) [Note : Order of Tribunal upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay : CIT Vs. Everest Kento Cylinder Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom). 2 Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 0.38% 4475/Mum/2007) 0.38% 0.38% 3 Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2014) 149 .20% ITD 511 (Mumbai) 0.20% 4 Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. Vs. JCIT .5% (2016) 47 CCH 760 (Mum) 5 Godrej Household Products Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT .5% 41 taxmann.com 386 (Mum) 6 Nimbus Communications Limited Vs.…

DCIT- CC -8 (1), Mumbai vs. All Cargo Logistics Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Learned Cit(A). He Submitted That Learned Cit(A) Noticed That Guarantee Commission Was Adopted At 0.50% In The Assessee’S Own Case For A.Y. 2010-11 & The Same Was Also Supported By The Decision Rendered By Hon'Ble Bombay High Court In The Case Of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. (378 Itr 57). Accordingly Learned Cit(A) Directed The Assessing Officer/Tpo To Re-Compute Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account

…submitted that learned CIT(A) noticed that guarantee commission was adopted at 0.50% in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 and the same was also supported by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. (378 ITR 57). Accordingly learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-compute transfer pricing adjustment on account 2 M/s.Allcargo Logistics Ltd. of corporate guarantee given to AE at 0.50% of the guaranteed amount. The Learned AR submitted that the order so passed by learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference, since learned CIT(A) has f…

O/O DCIT 3(3) (1), Room No. 668, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai vs. M/S. Sikka Ports & Terminals Ports Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

…ing the facts of the case and deciding the issue on the merits of the case? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in arriving at the same 0.5% rate of corporate guarantee fees relying on the Everest Kanto case (378 ITR 57), which is in violation of provisions of Rule 10B(4) of IT Rules on contemporaneous nature of data as credit ratings and the interest rate vary each year? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the fee for the guarantee issued by the instant assessee for the loans availed by the AE…

Sikka Ports & Terminals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

…ing the facts of the case and deciding the issue on the merits of the case? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in arriving at the same 0.5% rate of corporate guarantee fees relying on the Everest Kanto case (378 ITR 57), which is in violation of provisions of Rule 10B(4) of IT Rules on contemporaneous nature of data as credit ratings and the interest rate vary each year? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the fee for the guarantee issued by the instant assessee for the loans availed by the AE…