CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Allcargo Logistics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit. Cc -8(1), M/S Allcargo Logistics Ltd. Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Diamond Square, Cst Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Ropad, Kalina, Santacruz(E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400098 Pan: Aacca2894D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…dated 25.03.2015. In alternative, it was argued that the T.P. Adjustment may be restricted to amount determined by the ld CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v/s Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 57/232 Taxman 307/58 taxmann.com 254 (Bom.) and the decision of Delhi Tribunal in 11 ITA No.4786/M/2015 & C.O. 108/M/2016- M/s Allcargo Logistics Ltd. Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. ACIT (63 SOT 113). In the rejoinder argument, the ld. DR for the Revenue fairly conceded on factual position. The ld. AR of the assessee would argue that in case the grounds…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(1), Mumbai vs. Rolta India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Rolta India Ltd., Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Tolta Tower A, Rolta Mumbai Technology Park, M.I.D.C., Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaacr2711G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya (Dr) Assessee By : Mrs. Renu Kapoor (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 13/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/08/2019

…the identical issue in assessee’s own case ITA No. 882/Mum/2017 for the AY 2012-13 and the Tribunal has restricted the commission to 0.5% by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Everest Canto Cylinders Ltd. 378 ITR 57 (Bom). Since, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are in Assessment Year: 2013-14 accordance with the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal rendered in the assessee’s own case aforesaid, there is no merit in the appeal of the revenue. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the material on record in the light of the rival contentions of the pa…

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu) - 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Glenmark House, Income Tax – Ltu-2, 29Th Floor, Centre-I Hdo Corporate Builsing Wing A,B,D. Sawant Marg World Trade Centre Chakala, Opp. Western Express Cuffe Parade, Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 005 400 099 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg2207L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Income Tax – Ltu-2, Glenmark House, 29Th Floor, Centre-I Hdo Corporate Builsing World Trade Centre Wing A,B,D. Sawant Marg Cuffe Parade, Chakala, Opp. Western Express Mumbai – 400 005 Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg2207L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…arned counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that being aggrieved with the above order in M/s. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd., the Revenue had filed an appeal to this Court raising an identical issue viz. CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 57/232 Taxman 307/58 taxmann.com 254 (Bom.). By an order dated May 8, 2015, the above appeal was not entertained. (b) As no distinction in facts and/or law has been shown to us in this appeal which would warrant taking a different view on this very issue from that taken by this Court in Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (supra), we follow the same. (c) Ac…

Cox & King (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Cox & Kings Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Turner Morrison Building, Income Tax-Range 1(1)(1), Vs. 16 Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai Room No. 533/579, Mumbai-400001. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacc1921B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajan R. Vora, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajneesh Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2019

…that the Tribunal has accepted in assessee’s own case for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11 in ITA No. 1354 & 7770/Mum/2014 dated 04.11.2015, wherein it has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom) and observed as under: “Considering the above stated facts, we direct the AO to restrict the adjustments to 0.5% as upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders (supra).” Facts being identical, we follow the above order of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case and direct the AO to restrict the adjustment at…

ACIT (Ltu) - 2, Mumbai vs. Glenmark Generics Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Glenmark Generics Income Tax, (Large Ltd., Taxpayer Unit)-2, Mumbai Glenmark House, Hdo World Trade Centre, Corporate Building, Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Wing A, B.D. Sawant Marg Cuffe Parade, Chakala, Opp. Western Mumbai – 400 005 Express Highway Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 099 Pan/Gir No. Aaccg9820D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Glenmark Generics Income Tax, (Large Ltd., Taxpayer Unit)-2, Mumbai Glenmark House, HDO World Trade Centre, Corporate Building, Centre-1, 29th Floor, Wing A, B.D. Sawant Marg Cuffe Parade, Chakala, Opp. Western Mumbai – 400 005 Express Highway Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 099 PAN/GIR No. AACCG9820D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Anand Mohan Assessee by Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Date of Hearing 10/07/2019 Date of Pronouncement 17/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGAN…

Godrej Cosumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 14(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 12632/2017 dated 11/12/2018. In the said decision, Hon’ble court has approved the estimation @ 0.53% & 1.47%. This decision has been rendered after considering the decision in CIT V/s Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. [378 ITR 57]. Therefore, respectfully following the higher judicial wisdom, on the facts, we restrict the estimation to 2%. The Ld. AO / TPO is directed to recompute the impugned TP adjustment. Ground No. 4 stand partly allowed. M/s Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. Assessment Year : 2010-11 12.1 The third TP adjustment pertains to ALP of intra group services. T…

Apar Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (Tp) No.4134/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Apar Industries Limited बिधम/ Dcit Cc 6(1) (Erstwhile Apar House, Corporate Park, Acit Central Circle-34) Vs. 19Th Floor, Air India Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Building, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg1840M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Manish Kanajia (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 55, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (TP) No.4134/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Apar Industries Limited बिधम/ DCIT CC 6(1) (erstwhile Apar House, Corporate Park, ACIT Central Circle-34) Vs. 19th Floor, Air India Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Building, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACG1840M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Manish Kanajia (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 03/06/2019 घोषणा की ता…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…Bombay High Court has consistently held that comparison cannot be done while computing ALP of international transaction by way of corporate guarantee with bank guarantee. The similar stand was taken in CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 57(Bom.) , wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court held as under: “10. Having considered submissions of Mr. Malhotra for the revenue and Mr. Pardiwalla for the assessee, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal as regards disallowance under section 14A and restricting the same to Rs. 1 lac was justified in view of the material before the Tribunal…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…Bombay High Court has consistently held that comparison cannot be done while computing ALP of international transaction by way of corporate guarantee with bank guarantee. The similar stand was taken in CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Limited reported in (2015) 378 ITR 57(Bom.) , wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court held as under: “10. Having considered submissions of Mr. Malhotra for the revenue and Mr. Pardiwalla for the assessee, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal as regards disallowance under section 14A and restricting the same to Rs. 1 lac was justified in view of the material before the Tribunal…

Piramal Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodpiramal Healthcare Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Known As Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax- 7(1) Piramal Tower, Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013

…e Finance Act, 2012 is applicable prospectively, are concerned, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the same. Our aforesaid view s fortified by the fact that the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom), while disposing off the appeal of the revenue for A.Y 2007-08, vide its order dated 08.05.2015, had concluded that considerations that applied for issuance of Corporate guarantee were distinct and separate from that of bank guarantee, and accordingly had held that commission charged could not be called in question, in the manner the TPO had…

ACIT (Ltu) - 2, Mumbai vs. Glenmark Generics Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…g the submissions of the assessee and relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of assessee’s holding company viz. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in DCIT v/s Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 57 (Bom.), learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to consider the arm's length price of the corporate guarantee commission @ 0.5% per annum in both the assessment years under appeal. 11. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. 12. The learned Authorised Representative str…

ACIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai vs. J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.6075/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–8, Mumbai v/s J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. B–Wing, 4th Floor, Neelam Centre ……………. Respondent Hind Cycle Road, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACJ1482G ITA no.6317/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. B–Wing, 4th Floor, Neelam Centre ……………. Appellant Hind Cycle Road, Worli Mumbai 400 030 PAN – AAACJ1482G v/…