CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

336 ITR 209High Court2011#4341 most cited

What is CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) is not maintainable when both the payer and payee are assessed at the maximum marginal rate, as it results in a revenue-neutral situation.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. · 336 ITR 209 · section 40A(2)(b) · maximum marginal rate · revenue neutral · disallowance

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 201(1A)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 46A

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)section 40asection 40salarypersoncompanysection 143(3)indiabusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Proactive in & Out Advertising Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1025/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 1025/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Proactive In & Out Advertising Pvt. Vs Cit(A)-26, Ltd., B Wing, Samkeet Apartment, New Delhi Vileeparle (East), S.O. Mumbai, Maharashtra-400057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccp6306R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21, Arises Against The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi’S Order Dated 08.01.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…clinching factual position, we notice that various judicial precedents i.e. PCIT Vs. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd. (2022) 145 taxmann.com 35 (Del.), CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P.) Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 306, CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 209 (Bom.) as well as the CBDT’s landmark Circular No. 6-P issued way back on 18.06.1967 have settled the issue against the department that when both the payer and payee are assessed at maximum marginal rate, the impugned disallowance is not maintainable being a revenue neutral case. We thus reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking…

Eastern Cargo Carriers (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 4610/MUM/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Eastern Cargo Carriers (India) The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., Department, Vs. Unit No. 26, Adarsh Ind. Estates, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400099. Pan No. Aaace 1520 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(a)

…s (Travel) (P.) Ltd. reported CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P.) Ltd. reported in 310 ITR 306, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High C , decision of Hon’ble Bombay High C , decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd. 336 ITR 209 CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd. 336 ITR 209 CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd. 336 ITR 209, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Glaxo Smithkline Glaxo Smithkline Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asia (P.) Ltd. reported in 236 CTR 113 (SC) Asia (P.) Ltd. reported in 236 CTR 113 (SC). The Ld. counsel for . The Ld. counsel f…

The Supreme Industrial Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 7598/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. Acit Ltu, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Cit- Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR)
Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 197Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. ACIT LTU, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR) सुनवाई की त…

Kkr Agro Mills P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 328/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11 Kkr Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Iii/678, Kkr Building, Okkal Kalady, Circle – 1(2), Ernakulam – 683 550. Kochi. Pan : Aabck 6542 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)

…he sister concerns are also taxed at the highest rate of tax and therefore the transaction cannot be said to done with an intention to evade tax. In this regard the learned AR relied on the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of VS Dempo & Co P Ltd (336 ITR 209) 7. The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The provisions of section 40A(2) reads as follows – Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances. 40A. (1) ** (2)(a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be…

Mukesh Kumar, Bhattu vs. ITO Ward - 1, Fatehabad

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

ITA 6443/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

…e Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Hotels Ltd., 177 Taxman 417 and Hive Communication (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 201 Taxman 99. He also relied on the following decisions:- 4 High Court of Bombay i) 310 ITR 306 (Mum) CIT vs. Indo Saudi Travel (P) Ltd. ii) 336 ITR 209 (Bom) CIT vs. Y.S. Dempo & Co. (P) Ltd. High Court of Karnataka i) 293 ITR 451 (Kar) DCIT vs. Mircotex Separators Ltd. ITAT Delhi Bench i) ITA No. 429/D/2011 dated 7.12.2012 Raj Surendra and Associates vs. ACIT ii) 10 SOT 525 (Del) ACIT vs. Doon Valley Motors iii) ITA No. 4034/D/2007 (Del) dated 5.2.2008 DCIT vs. M/s Amitdeep Motors iv) 51 SOT 4…

M/S Adwise Consultations Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cirlce 4(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 275/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.275/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Edwise Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle 4(1)(2) बनाम/ Jer Mahal, Opp. Metro Cinema 642, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2363-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri T.R.Khalsa-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 30/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 30/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Khalsa-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(a)

…ssessee. We find similar factual matrix in this year. Further, the facts of the case are covered by the ratio of binding decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High court in CIT V.s Indo Saudi Services Travels Pvt. Ltd. (310 ITR 306) as well as V. S. Demo & Co. P. Ltd. (336 ITR 209). Going by the same, we are inclined to delete the impugned adhoc disallowance of Rs.13 Lacs. This ground stand allowed. No other grounds have been urged before us. 5. The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 30th December, 2020. SD/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) "ाियक सद" / Judicial Member…

DCIT Cir 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Shcil Services Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1811/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1811/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Galvala, DRFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194J

…s sister concern, since the sister concern was also paying tax at higher rate and hence the disallowance made u/s 40A(2)(a) was deleted. We further notice that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has expressed identical view in the case of V.S. Dempo & Co. (P) Ltd (336 ITR 209) also. The Hon’ble Punjab 15 I.T.A. No. 1811/Mum/2019 M/s SHCIL Services Ltd & Haryana High Court has also expressed similar view in the case of CIT Vs. Siya Ram Garg (HUF) (2011)(237 CTR 321)”. Respectfully following the said order, we hold that the provisions of Sec. 194H are attracted to the payments made towards sub-brokerage but not the pr…

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…as paid to BCCL. The range of commission in such type of business varies from 5% to 20%. It does not seems justifiable in view of the law settled in Upper India Publishing House P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 569(SC), CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 209 (Bom), CIT Vs. Raman Boards Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 305 (Karnataka), CIT Vs. Modi Revlon (P.) Ltd. (2012) 210 taxman 161 (Delhi) (MAG) & CIT(A) in own case for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 16.11.2015. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the law relied by the assessee we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of c…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 812/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…as paid to BCCL. The range of commission in such type of business varies from 5% to 20%. It does not seems justifiable in view of the law settled in Upper India Publishing House P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 569(SC), CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 209 (Bom), CIT Vs. Raman Boards Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 305 (Karnataka), CIT Vs. Modi Revlon (P.) Ltd. (2012) 210 taxman 161 (Delhi) (MAG) & CIT(A) in own case for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 16.11.2015. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the law relied by the assessee we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of c…

Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4977/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhtrimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit - 10(3) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dcit - 15(3)(1) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Hitesh Trivedi (Ars) Respondent By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Cit(A)]-22, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2012 & Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai Dated 24.06.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) For Ita No. 3471/M/12 & 4977/M/16- Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. ACIT - 10(3) DGP House, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. PAN: AABCT2569F Appellant Respondent Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. DCIT - 15(3)(1) DGP House, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. PAN: AABCT2569F Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Hitesh Trivedi (ARs) Respondent by :…

Quantum Advisors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Range-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 1(3)(1), 503, Regent Chambers, Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacq0281C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., The Additional Comm. Of Income 503, Regent Chambers, Tax, Circle- 1(2), Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Maharshi Karve Marg, Pan: Aaacq0281C Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/05/2019

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143Section 40A

…s to how the assessee evaded tax by making payment to its subsidiary, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. The Ld. counsel further relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vs. Dempo & Company Pvt. Ltd. 336 ITR 209 (Bom), submitted that since the subsidiary company is not a related person of the assessee within the meaning of, sub- clause (iv) of clause (b) of section 40A(2), the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act are not attracted in the present case, therefore the Ld CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance made u/s 40A of the Act. 4. We have he…

DCIT - 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3989/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 1(3)(1), 503, Regent Chambers, Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacq0281C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., The Additional Comm. Of Income 503, Regent Chambers, Tax, Circle- 1(2), Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Maharshi Karve Marg, Pan: Aaacq0281C Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/05/2019

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143Section 40A

…s to how the assessee evaded tax by making payment to its subsidiary, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. The Ld. counsel further relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vs. Dempo & Company Pvt. Ltd. 336 ITR 209 (Bom), submitted that since the subsidiary company is not a related person of the assessee within the meaning of, sub- clause (iv) of clause (b) of section 40A(2), the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act are not attracted in the present case, therefore the Ld CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance made u/s 40A of the Act. 4. We have he…

The Bombay Samachar P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5683/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain V.P, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(2)(b)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” 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. 5683/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Bombay Samachar The Dy. Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Red House, Sayed Abdulla Vs. Mumbai Brelvi Road, Horniman circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAACT1340B अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Jeet Ka…

M/S Salt Lake Society for Hotel Management, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-43(2), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 156/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

…ntion to the CBDT’s Circular No.6-P dated 06.07.1968 making necessary clarification to this effect as considered in hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P) Ltd (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom), V.S Dempo & Co. (D) Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 209 (Bom) and CIT vs. Siya Rans Garg (2011) 237 CTR 321 (P&H). He then refers to the two payee’ income tax returns acknowledgements indicating both of them to have declared respective taxable income(s) of ₹70,30,744/- and ₹38,07,614/- in former assessment year 2011-12. The same sufficiently indicates that the two payee(s) are assessed as maximum rate…

M/S Salt Lake Society for Hotel Management, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-43(2), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 155/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

…ntion to the CBDT’s Circular No.6-P dated 06.07.1968 making necessary clarification to this effect as considered in hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P) Ltd (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom), V.S Dempo & Co. (D) Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 209 (Bom) and CIT vs. Siya Rans Garg (2011) 237 CTR 321 (P&H). He then refers to the two payee’ income tax returns acknowledgements indicating both of them to have declared respective taxable income(s) of ₹70,30,744/- and ₹38,07,614/- in former assessment year 2011-12. The same sufficiently indicates that the two payee(s) are assessed as maximum rate…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Samachar P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 35/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(a)

…section 40A(2) of the Act should be made. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Indo Soudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd., [2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd., [2011] 336 ITR 209 (Bom.); and 9 The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd. iii) Chryscapital Investment Advisors (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2015] 376 ITR 183 (Del.). 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Departmental Authorities. He also relied upon the following decisions:– i) Nund & Samont Co. P. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1970] 78 ITR 268 (SC);…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Microtrol Sterlisation Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3489/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3281/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Microtrol Sterilisation Deputy Commissioner Of Services Private Limited Income Tax 8(2) (Cin : U33120Mh1991Ptc064185) Mumbai बनाम/ 1,Kirplani Estate Vs. Saki Vihar Road Saki Naka, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2664-B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3489/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Microtrol Sterilisation Income Tax 10(2)(2) Services Private Limited (Cin : U33120Mh1991Ptc064185) Room No. 216A बनाम/ 1,Kirplani Estate Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Saki Vihar Road M.K.Road Saki Naka, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2664-B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Keshav B Bhujle, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sourabh Rai, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 198Section 40A(2)

…/Mum/2015 Microtrol Sterilisation Services Private Limited Assessment Year-2011-2012 10. Finally, at this juncture, we are inclined to reproduce the observation made by jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.S.Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd. (336 ITR 209):- “In this connection, the fact that the assessee as well as its subsidiary which is the seller are in the same tax bracket and pay same rate of tax is a fact which assumes importance. Admittedly, it is not a case of tax evasion inasmuch as if the rate would have been less, the assessee’s profit would have been more, but the profits of the selle…

Microtrol Sterilisation Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3281/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3281/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Microtrol Sterilisation Deputy Commissioner Of Services Private Limited Income Tax 8(2) (Cin : U33120Mh1991Ptc064185) Mumbai बनाम/ 1,Kirplani Estate Vs. Saki Vihar Road Saki Naka, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2664-B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3489/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Microtrol Sterilisation Income Tax 10(2)(2) Services Private Limited (Cin : U33120Mh1991Ptc064185) Room No. 216A बनाम/ 1,Kirplani Estate Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Saki Vihar Road M.K.Road Saki Naka, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2664-B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Keshav B Bhujle, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sourabh Rai, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 198Section 40A(2)

…/Mum/2015 Microtrol Sterilisation Services Private Limited Assessment Year-2011-2012 10. Finally, at this juncture, we are inclined to reproduce the observation made by jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.S.Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd. (336 ITR 209):- “In this connection, the fact that the assessee as well as its subsidiary which is the seller are in the same tax bracket and pay same rate of tax is a fact which assumes importance. Admittedly, it is not a case of tax evasion inasmuch as if the rate would have been less, the assessee’s profit would have been more, but the profits of the selle…

ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Devyang Realty Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and CO are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 231/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ted to tax at the highest slab of 30% in respect of rent received from the company and hence there is no tax avoidance. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (336 ITR 209), learned AR submitted that provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act was held to be not attracted when there is no tax evasion. Accordingly, he submitted that provisions of section 40A(2)(a) has been wrongly invoked by the tax authorities in the instant case. 9. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee h…

Hindustan Uniliver Ltd ( As Successor to Bon Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1144/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 1144/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2004-2005) Hindustan Unilever Ltd Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2) (As Successor To Bon Ltd) Aaykar Bhawan बिाम/ Hindustan Lever House Mumbai Vs. 165/166 Backbay Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcb0171H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala / Shri Nishant Thakkar / Ms. Jasmine Amalsadwala प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri J.P.Jangid, Dr

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri J.P.Jangid, DR
Section 143(3)Section 155JSection 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…erns where there is no attempt to evade taxes. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments of jurisdictional Bombay High Court:- 5 M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (As successor to M/s Bon Ltd.) Assessment Year 2004-2005 (i) CIT Vs V. S. Dempo & Co P. Ltd 336 ITR 209 (ii) CIT Vs Indo Saudi Services( Travels) P Ltd 310 ITR 306 Further, during Assessment proceedings before AO, the assessee has vide its reply dated 21/12/2006 had confirmed that the payments made for Processing Charges, purchase of raw material and purchase of goods were based on prevailing market price of the goods and services and have been fi…