CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.

Western Refregeration P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…length commission for corporate guarantee provided to the AE should be determined by applying the rate of 0.5%. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 57 (Bom.) and the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in ITA no.882/Mum./2017, dated 7th September 2018. 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Transfer Pricing Officer. Having considered rival submissions, it is noticed that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Everes…

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…gh, held that providing corporate guarantee to the AEs comes within the ambit of international transaction under section 92B of the Act, however, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 57 (Bom.), he held that guarantee commission @ 0.5% should be charged. 5. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer. Whereas, the learned Authorised Representative strongly supported the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused mate…

Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Technocraft Industries (I) Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Marol Industrial Area Income Tax, 8(3) Road No.3, Andheri (E) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2724P Appellant) .. Respondent)

…provided the funds to its subsidiary, hence provision of guarantee does not lead to any additional risk in the assessee warranting compensation. He further placed on record the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd., 378 ITR 57 wherein under similar facts and circumstances, guarantee commission was restricted to 0.5%. Learned AR also placed on record various decisions of Co-ordinate Benches in case of Videocon Industries Ltd., 186 TTJ 353 and M/s. Asian Paints Ltd., 149 ITD 551, Nimbus Communication Ltd., 45 ITD 582 (Mum), Reliance Industries Ltd., ITA No.4475/Mum/2017 a…

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…rate of 0.5% should be applied to Corporate Guarantee. In this context, we refer to the following decisions:– i) Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v/s DCIT, 34 taxmann.com 19; approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. 378 ITR 57; ii) CIT v/s Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 85 taxmann.com 349 (Bom.); iii) Thomas Cook India Ltd. v/s DCIT, (49 191–212 ITR(T) 178 (Mum.); iv) Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. v/s JCIT, 75 taxmann.com 79 (Mum.); v) Videocon Industries Ltd. v/s DCIT, 168 TTJ 353 (Mum.); & vi) Girabal Alok Impex Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.1776/Mum./ 2015 (Mum.). 52.…

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

In the result, the appeal assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “K” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 1557/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Apar Industries Limited, The Dy. Commissioner of Apar House, Corporation Income Tax, CC-6(1), Park, Building No.5, Sion (erstwhile ACIT Central Vs. Circle-34), 19th Floor, Air Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 India Building, Mumbai .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्था…

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

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.956/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Apar Industries Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 6(1) Apar House, Corporate Park [Erstwhile Acit Central Circle 34] बनाम/ Building No.5 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Sion Trombay Road Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Chembur Mumbai-400 071 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-1840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By : V.Jenardhanan, Ld. Dr

…acility and therefore, the same was required to be compensated by its AE. Our view is duly supported by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. Vs. DCIT [34 Taxmann.com 19] as affirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 08/05/2015 [58 Taxmann.com 254] wherein the rate of commission has been adopted @0.5%. Respectfully, following the same, we estimate the impugned additions @0.5% per annum. The Ld. AO is directed to quantity the addition and re-compute the income of the assessee in terms of our above order. 5. Resultantly, the appeal stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open c…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co, . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT -2(1) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 PAN:AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. ACIT -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 PAN:AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT -2(1) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5th Floor,…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT -2(1) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 PAN:AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. ACIT -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 PAN:AAACT2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT -2(1) M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5th Floor,…

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ केकेकेके” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम एवं राम राम लाल राम लाल लाल नेगी लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4156/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर…

Laqshya Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

…ior counsel for assessee [AR], Sh. Rajan Vora was that the said transaction was not an international transaction but fairly conceded that in view of amendment in Section 92B and jurisdictional Bombay High Court judgment in CIT Vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. 378 ITR 57, the said transaction constitutes international transaction. On merit, is was stated that the CG has been provided to its AE under overall financing structuring arrangement where over and above the share capital invested, funds were provided and CG was also given. Moreover, the assessee was not in the business of financing / giving guarantees and…

ACIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Laqshya Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

…ior counsel for assessee [AR], Sh. Rajan Vora was that the said transaction was not an international transaction but fairly conceded that in view of amendment in Section 92B and jurisdictional Bombay High Court judgment in CIT Vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. 378 ITR 57, the said transaction constitutes international transaction. On merit, is was stated that the CG has been provided to its AE under overall financing structuring arrangement where over and above the share capital invested, funds were provided and CG was also given. Moreover, the assessee was not in the business of financing / giving guarantees and…

The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N K Pradhan, Am The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Range- Neville House, J.N. Heradia Marg, 2(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Room No.561, Aayakar Pan No.Aaact2328K Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020

…tivity/quasi capital, thus, could not be included in the ambit of international transaction u/s 92(1) of the Act. Further, Ahmedabad Tribunal has distinguished the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd [2015] 378 ITR 57 (Bom.), wherein the assessee had actually charged for corporate guarantee fee, unlike in the case of the assessee as well as in the case of Micro Ink Ltd. (supra), for providing corporate guarantee. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Siro Clinpharm Private Limited vs. DCIT (in ITA No. 2618/M/2014) dated 31-03-2016 for AY 2009-10 following the deci…

Nirmal N Kotecha, Mumbai vs. CIT(28), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3567/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-17(2) Mr. Nirmal N. Kotecha Room No.134, Aayakar Bhavan 601, Sukh Castle, Bhadarkar Road Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Matunga,Mumbai-400 019. Pan:Aezpk 2016 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3700/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 वष" Mr. Nirmal N. Kotecha Vs. Acit-17(2) Mumbai-400 019. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Jagdish P. Jangid-Dr Assessee By: Shri Pradeep Kapasi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 27/03/2015,Of The Cit(A)-28,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year. Assessee,An Individual,Filed His Return Of Income On 30/09/2009, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 4. 70Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment,U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 29/12/2011,Determining His Income At Rs. 49.29 Crores.

…Rs. 16.41 lakhs, being exempt dividend income.He referred to the 2 3700&3567/M/15 Nirmal N. Kotecha cases of India Advantage Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 471),HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), Maxopp Investments Ltd.(374 ITR 272) and Everest Canto Cylinders Ltd. (378 ITR 57). 2.4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that assessee had shown dividend income of Rs.16,48,785/-,that he himself had made a disallowance of Rs.10.97 lakhs in the return of income filed by him, that the AO made a disallowance of Rs. 2.37 crores, that the FAA reduced the disallowance to Rs.70.71 lakhs,…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. Comm of Income Tax Range-11 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodzee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaacz 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4Th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr.A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 020 PAN:AAACZ 0243R ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -11(1), 4th Floor, Room No.434, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 .... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent by : S/Shri N.K.Chand & Shahi Sanjay Kumar Date of hearing : 10/02/2017 Date of pronouncement : 05/05/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: The captioned appeal filed…

Rajendra Tubes & Fittings, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 7003/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

…the consent given by the assessee before the AO is not binding and the assessee could always contest the addition. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Everest Kento Cyinders Ltd (378 ITR 57)(Bom). 4. I have gone through the order passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in my view, the assessee cannot derive support there from. In the case before Hon’ble High Court, the issue was relating to the addition made u/s 14A of the 3 Rajendra Tubes & Fittings Act. The assessee before the Hon’ble High Court did not make any disallowance unde…