CIT v. VS Dempo and Co (private) Ltd.

336 ITR 29High Court#24694 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 92ba specified domestic transaction section 92b transfer pricing adjustment section 40a dispute resolution panel section 92 section 144c section 40 section 144 transfer person

Judgments citing CIT v. VS Dempo and Co (private) Ltd.

IMPERIAL MARK TRADE (I) P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1453/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 254(1)Section 92C

…ng a second chance to the revenue and therefore no remand is warranted for verification of provisions of Section 40A (2) of the act. Very heavy reliance was placed on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in CIT versus VS Dempo and Co (private) Ltd 336 ITR 29 (Bombay). We find that in that particular decision the honourable Bombay High Court has given a categorical answer that the provisions of Section 40A (2) was not attracted in that particular cases because the subsidiary company was not at all related person of the assessee within the meaning of the provisions of Section 40A (2) (b) of the act. No…

MUTHA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7226/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 40ASection 92B

MAHINDRA TRUCKS AND BUSES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 519/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 201Section 40aSection 92C

…g a second chance to the revenue and therefore no remand is warranted for verification of provisions of Section 40A (2) of the act. Very heavy reliance was placed on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in CIT versus V S Dempo and Co (private) Ltd 336 ITR 29 (Bombay). We find that in that particular decision the honourable Bombay High Court has given a categorical answer that the provisions of Section 40A (2) was not attracted in that particular cases because the subsidiary company was not at all related person of the assessee within the meaning of the provisions of Section 40A (2) (b) of the act. No…