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

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.?

304 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (378 ITR 57), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 92B, Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 35(2AB), Section 37(1).

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (378 ITR 57)

M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Protection Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, Neac Delhi

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 128/CHANDI/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.127/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.128/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Addl. Cit Protection Ltd. Nfac बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road Delhi Vs. Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Distt. Sas Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Khanna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 & 2009-10 Is In Second Round Of Litigation Since The Appeal Was Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.60/Chd/2013 & Ita No.100/Chd/2013 Common Order Dated 23-07-2018 For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10 Wherein Few Of The Issues Were Restored Back To Lower

For Appellant: Shri Anil Khanna (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)

…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. 7. No other ground has been urged by Ld. AR before us. The appeal stand partly allowed. 8. Assessment Year 2009-10 In this year, th…

M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Protection Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, Neac Delhi

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 127/CHANDI/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.127/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.128/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Addl. Cit Protection Ltd. Nfac बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road Delhi Vs. Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Distt. Sas Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Khanna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 & 2009-10 Is In Second Round Of Litigation Since The Appeal Was Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.60/Chd/2013 & Ita No.100/Chd/2013 Common Order Dated 23-07-2018 For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10 Wherein Few Of The Issues Were Restored Back To Lower

For Appellant: Shri Anil Khanna (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)

…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. 7. No other ground has been urged by Ld. AR before us. The appeal stand partly allowed. 8. Assessment Year 2009-10 In this year, th…

M/S Essar Shipping Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4440/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Piyush Chaturvedi

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 41Section 92B(2)Section 92C

…termined by adopting the most appropriate method (MAM) from the prescribed methods as per Section 92C of the Act. The ld. AR though has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. [378 ITR 57, [2015] 277 CTR 511 (Bom.) where rate of 0.5% is determined as Arm's Length Price of the guarantee commission and 0.25% has been determined in assessee's case for earlier years. It is pertinent to point out that the rate determined in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. (supra) pertains to A.Y. 2011-12 by adopting the CUP as the most appropria…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. E I D Parry India Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

…ia) Ltd. reported in [2021] 430 ITR 298 (Mad) and the decision of the Hon’ble High IT(TP)A Nos.105 to 107/Chny/2024 & ITA No. 3113 & 3251/Chny/24 Court of Bombay in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 395 (Bom.) & 378 ITR 57, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the TP adjustment @ 0.5% of the guarantee value. Accordingly, by following the above decision of the Tribunal, we restrict the corporate guarantee commission to 0.5% of guarantee value. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee for all the assessment years under consideration is partly al…

M/S. Eid Parry India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu-1, Chennai

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

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

…ia) Ltd. reported in [2021] 430 ITR 298 (Mad) and the decision of the Hon’ble High IT(TP)A Nos.105 to 107/Chny/2024 & ITA No. 3113 & 3251/Chny/24 Court of Bombay in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 395 (Bom.) & 378 ITR 57, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the TP adjustment @ 0.5% of the guarantee value. Accordingly, by following the above decision of the Tribunal, we restrict the corporate guarantee commission to 0.5% of guarantee value. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee for all the assessment years under consideration is partly al…

Lava International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 532/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2016-17] M/s Lava International ACIT, Circle-13(1), Limited, Central Revenue Building, B-14, House-2, Basement, Vs I.P. Estate, Shivlok Commercial Complex New Delhi-110002 Karampura, New Delhi`110015 PAN-AABCL5987H Appellant Respondent Revenue by Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Richa Agarwal, Adv. Assessee by Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 09.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.04.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This…

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2234/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…facts of the case and without deciding the issue on the merits of the case? (v) 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 fee relying on the Everest Kanto case (378 ITR 57), which is in violation of provisions of Rule 108(4) of IT Rules on contemporaneous nature of data as credit ratings and the interest rate vary every year, without adopting any of the methods prescribed in section 92C which is violation of law? (vi) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding th…

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co.Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2232/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…facts of the case and without deciding the issue on the merits of the case? (v) 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 fee relying on the Everest Kanto case (378 ITR 57), which is in violation of provisions of Rule 108(4) of IT Rules on contemporaneous nature of data as credit ratings and the interest rate vary every year, without adopting any of the methods prescribed in section 92C which is violation of law? (vi) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding th…

Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…facts of the case and without deciding the issue on the merits of the case? (v) 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 fee relying on the Everest Kanto case (378 ITR 57), which is in violation of provisions of Rule 108(4) of IT Rules on contemporaneous nature of data as credit ratings and the interest rate vary every year, without adopting any of the methods prescribed in section 92C which is violation of law? (vi) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding th…

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2026/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…facts of the case and without deciding the issue on the merits of the case? (v) 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 fee relying on the Everest Kanto case (378 ITR 57), which is in violation of provisions of Rule 108(4) of IT Rules on contemporaneous nature of data as credit ratings and the interest rate vary every year, without adopting any of the methods prescribed in section 92C which is violation of law? (vi) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding th…

Havells India Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -17

ITA/387/2022HC Delhi19 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 92BSection 92B(1)

…$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 387/2022 HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Appearance not given. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -17 .....Respondent Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC with Ms. Zehra Khan & Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R % 19.02.2025 1. The assessee seeks to impugn the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 dated 09 May 2022 and posits the following ques…

Vvf (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 4840/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.4840/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 VVF (India) Limited Vs. Assessment Unit, VVF (India) Limited Plot Income Tax 109, Sion Fort Garden, Department, Sion(East), National Faceless Mumbai - 400022 Assessment PAN:AADCV4970G Centre(NFAC) DCIT Circle-8(3)(1), R.No. 665/A, 6th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Chintan Vajani Respondent by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 22/01/2025 Date of Pronouncemen…

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Greatship(India) Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 753/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar

Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 250

…e assessee to a bank for standing guarantee on its behalf for a third party. Further, the Tribunal after drawing support from the 7 Assessment Year 2016-2017 order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom), had approved the determination of ALP of the corporate guarantee given by the assessee to the bank in order to facilitate raising of loan by its AE i.e on the basis of the aforesaid Internal CUP applied by the assessee. In its aforesaid order the Tribunal had observed as under: “17. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In th…

T vs. Motor Company Ltd., Chennaivs.ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

…ional transaction. We note that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in international transaction. We note that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in international transaction. We note that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd (378 ITR 57 CIT vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd (378 ITR 57 CIT vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd (378 ITR 57) has considered identical issue in light of the provisions of Section 92B and the considered identical issue in light of the provisions of Section 92B and the considered identical issue in light of the provisions of Section 92B and the Explanation, came…

Anand Nvh Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with consequences to follow as per determination of the grounds as above

ITA 705/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Nvh Products P. Ltd., Vs Dcit, F-3/5, Vasant Vihar, Circle-1(1), New Delhi – 110 057. New Delhi. Pan: Aaeca0297J

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh BhutaniFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anand NVH Products P. Ltd., Vs DCIT, F-3/5, Vasant Vihar, Circle-1(1), New Delhi – 110 057. New Delhi. PAN: AAECA0297J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Shri Saurabh Nandy & Ms Drishti Goel, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the final assessme…

Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5387/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year: 2021-22 Rosy Blue (India) Assistant Private Limited Commissioner Of 1608/09, Income Tax, Central Prasad Chambers, Circle 8(3) Vs. Tata Road No.2, 659, 6Th Floor, Opera House, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400004. Maharishi Karve Marg, Pan: Aaccr2413B Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR. D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rosy Blue (India) Assistant Private Limited Commissioner of 1608/09, Income Tax, Central Prasad Chambers, Circle 8(3) Vs. Tata Road No.2, 659, 6th floor, Opera House, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400004. Maharishi Karve Marg, PAN: AACCR2413B Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi & P. P. Bhandari Revenue by : Shri Asif Karmali (SR. D.R.) Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E…

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 434/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.434/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3F Industries Limited V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1 Aayakar Bhavan Pb No. 15, Tanuku Road Veerabhadrapuram Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh - 534102 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaacf2643K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

…ted by the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2020-21 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee by relying on various case laws including the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Everest Kanto Ltd reported in 378 ITR 57 this Bench of the Tribunal has held as under: Page No. 7 I.T.A.No.434/VIZ/2024 3F Industries Limited “8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is with respect to charging the corporate gua…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 498/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 181/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 498/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 EIH Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, 6th Floor, Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AAACE6898B] .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700169 ...............…..….................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Akkal Dudhewala, AR Department represented by : Abhijit Kundu, CIT-DR D…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 181/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 181/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & I.T.A. No. 498/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 EIH Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, 6th Floor, Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AAACE6898B] .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700169 ...............…..….................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Akkal Dudhewala, AR Department represented by : Abhijit Kundu, CIT-DR D…

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Assistant Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2020-21) 3F Industries Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 15, Tanuku Road, Income Tax, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Circle-1, District, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaacf2643K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

…being 1.9% of the corporate guarantee fees. However, in the assessee’s own case in the earlier AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17 by relying on various case laws including the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Everest Kanto Ltd reported in 378 ITR 57 this Bench of the Tribunal has held as under: “8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. We have also gone through the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2014-15 (ITA No.473/Viz/2017, dated 16/2/2023) wherein the Tribunal, after analyzin…

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.

M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Protection Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, Neac Delhi

M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Protection Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, Neac Delhi

M/S Essar Shipping Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. E I D Parry India Limited, Chennai

M/S. Eid Parry India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu-1, Chennai

Lava International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co.Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

Havells India Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -17

Vvf (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Greatship(India) Ltd., Mumbai

T vs. Motor Company Ltd., Chennaivs.ACIT, Chennai

Anand Nvh Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi, Kolkata

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, NFAC, Delhi

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Assistant Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry