Controller of Estate Duty v. R. Brahadeeswaran (163 ITR 680)

TECH MAHINDRA BUSINESS SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1256/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1256/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व.2017-18) Tech Mahindra Business Services Limited. Ground Floor, Spectrum Towers, Mindspace, Chincholi Bunder Link Road, Malad West, Mumbai – 400 064. Pan: Aabch-8136-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 13(3)(2), Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D,Mistri, Sr. Advocate With Shri Harsh Kapadia, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30/03/2022, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Ground Assailing Disallowance Made U/S. 14A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (In Short ‘The Rules’) Amounting To Rs.80,08,567/-. The Assessee Vide Application Dated 13/09/2022 Has Raised An Additional Ground

For Appellant: Shri J.D,Mistri, Sr. Advocate with Shri Harsh Kapadia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr.AR

Section 14A

…ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on various decisions including the decision rendered in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd., 187 ITR 688(SC), New India Industries Ltd., 207 ITR 1010 (Guj) and Contoller of Estate Duty vs. R. Brahadeeswaran, 163 ITR 680 (Mad) for admission of additional ground. 4. Ms. Richa Gulati representing the Department vehemently opposed admission of additional ground at this belated stage. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides on the admission of additional ground. We find that the additional ground raised by the assessee is legal in nature and no fresh e…

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Ali Asgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.154/Bang/2022 Assessment year : 2017-18 Practo Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Weworks, Salarpuria Symbiosis, of Income Tax, Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Central Circle 1(3), Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 076. PAN: AACCN 8042Q 16APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Ali Asgar Rampurawala, CA Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 18.05.2023 Date…

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…] 63 ITR 232. It did not follow a contrary decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Karamchand Premchand Private Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254, in view of the above Supreme Court decisions. (See also in this connection CED v. R. Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680, 682 (Mad)). These decisions of the Madras High Court have taken a view which is different from the view earlier taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Panchura Estate Ltd. v. Government of Madras [1973] 87 ITR 698. 33. There are, however, some judgments of High Courts which have taken a somewhat different view. The case of Addl. CIT v. Gu…

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1342/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT, 199 ITR 351 (Bom) • New India Industries Ltd., 207 ITR 1010 (Guj) • National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) • Ashok Vardhan Birla, 208 ITR 958 (Bom) • Controller of Estate Duty v. R. Brahadeeswaran, 163 ITR 680 (Mad) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR raised serious objections for admission of additional grounds. Page 4 of 17 6. We have perused the material on record on the admission of additional grounds. Since the facts relating to the issues raised in the additional grounds are already on record, placing reliance on the decision of National Thermal P…

SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7319/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Ravish Sood.

For Appellant: Shri. J.D. Mistry, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Mohan, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 43B

…s of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of viz. (i). Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC); (ii). New India Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 1010 (Guj); and (iii). Controller of Estate Duty Vs. R. Brahadeeswaran (1987) 163 ITR 680 (Mad). Relying on the aforesaid judgments, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that in the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority is vested with all the plenary powers, which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. Also, support was drawn by the ld. A.R from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of National…

NIKON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURGAON

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

ITA 6870/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.71, Sector-32, Circle-3(1), Institutional Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri S.S. Tomar & Shri Ankit Shahni, Advocates Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhalry, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th October, 2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Belongs To Nikon Group Of Cases Which Is Involved In A Broad Spectrum Of Business Centred On Precision Equipment, Imaging Products, Instruments & Other Business. The Activities Of The Nikon Group Are Carried Out Through The Following Divisions:- I) Precision Equipment Business, Ii) Imaging Products Business, Iii) Instruments Business, Iv) Other Businesses. 3. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.66,47,37,700/-. The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S 92Ca(1) Of The It Act To Determine The Arm’S Length Price Of The International Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Aes During The F.Y. 2013-14. The Tpo, During The Course Of Tp Assessment Proceedings Observed That The Assessee Has Entered Into The Following International Transactions During The Year:- No. Nature Of Transaction Value (Inr) Method Applied 1. Purchase Of Goods, Promotional & 6,571,207,639 Rpm Other Supplies 2 Purchase Of Fixed Assets 7,049,548 Tnmm 3 Service Income 30,717,853 Tnmm 4 Warranty Reimbursements Received 69,937,244 Cup 5. Cost Reimbursements Received 2,619,750 Cup 6 Cost Reimbursements Paid 5,628,706 Cup

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhalry, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…ise the additional ground. 9. Following the view expressed by the Kerala High Court, with which we have no reason to disagree, particularly since it relies upon a decision of the Madras High Court in CED vs. R. Brahadeeswaran (1986) 57 CTR (Mad) 162 : (1987) 163 ITR 680 (Mad), which in turn relies upon three decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC), Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC) and CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC), we answer the question of law in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and 15 re…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1 vs. OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 374/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shefali Swaroop, CIT- DR

…ne to permit the assessee to raise the additional ground. 10. Following the view expressed by the Kerala High Court, with which we have no reason to disagree, particularly since it relies upon a decision of the Madras High Court in CED v. P. Brahadeeswaran ’ 163 ITR 680, which in turn relies upon three decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. McMHan & ( [1958] 33 ITR 182 ; Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 and CIT v. Mahalakshmi Text:. Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710. we answer the question of law in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and remand the matter to the file of…

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-I,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 357/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shefali Swaroop, CIT- DR

…ne to permit the assessee to raise the additional ground. 10. Following the view expressed by the Kerala High Court, with which we have no reason to disagree, particularly since it relies upon a decision of the Madras High Court in CED v. P. Brahadeeswaran ’ 163 ITR 680, which in turn relies upon three decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. McMHan & ( [1958] 33 ITR 182 ; Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 and CIT v. Mahalakshmi Text:. Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710. we answer the question of law in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and remand the matter to the file of…

LANGAR COMMITTEE HANUMAN MANDIR,MALERKOTLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXAMPTION),, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 516/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A No. 516/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Jain & Kartik Jain (C As)For Respondent: Sh. S.S. Negi (DR)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)

…may refer some other decisions, as follows: CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service [1993] 199 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. C.C.C. Holdings [2003] 260 ITR 433 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj-FB). The matter accordingly shall travel back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh in accordance with law, in light of the foregoing findings/ observations. The assessee shall be allowed deduction qua any expenditure incurred, if any, including administrative expendit…

SHYAMALA PICTURES AND HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1185/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 04.07.2017

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 28

…260 ITR 433 (Mad); CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351(Bom-FB); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj-FB). 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on September 27, 2017 at Chennai. (जॉज" माथन) (संजय अरोड़ा) (George Mathan) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य/Judicial Member लेखा सद"य/Accountant Member चे"नई/Chennai, "दना…

JOHN CRANE SEALING SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 785/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ragunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: 19.06.2017

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘D’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, John Crane Sealing Systems (India) Corporate circle-2(2), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Room No.512, 5th Floor, No.1, Ground Floor, Casa Blanca, Chennai – 600 034. No.6, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [PAN: AAACJ 2131J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JOHN CRANE SEALING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 621/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ragunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: 19.06.2017

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘D’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.621/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, John Crane Sealing Systems (India) Corporate circle-2(2), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Room No.512, 5th Floor, No.1, Ground Floor, Casa Blanca, Chennai – 600 034. No.6, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [PAN: AAACJ 2131J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)…

OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in ITA No

ITA 149/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 15.05.2017

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘B’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.148 & 149/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 200-10 Olympus Elevator Pvt. Ltd., by L/r Kone Asst. Commissioner of Income Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Tax, No.50-55, Vanagaram Road, Corporate Range-V(1), Chennai – 600 095. Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AAACO 7123P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri G.Baskar, Advocate अपीलाथ…

OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in ITA No

ITA 148/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 15.05.2017

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘B’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.148 & 149/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 200-10 Olympus Elevator Pvt. Ltd., by L/r Kone Asst. Commissioner of Income Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Tax, No.50-55, Vanagaram Road, Corporate Range-V(1), Chennai – 600 095. Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AAACO 7123P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri G.Baskar, Advocate अपीलाथ…

AGILE ELECTRIC SUB ASSEMBLY (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 2497/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2497/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 79

…ter is well-settled, viz. CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service [1993] 199 ITR 1 (SC); Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (Mad); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom-FB); Controller of Estate Duty v. R.Brahadeeswaran [1987] 163 ITR 680 (Mad); CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj-FB), considering the issue in its different aspects. That rules 11 & 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 are not exhaustive of the powers of the tribunal stands clarified as far back as in Hukumchand Mills Ltd v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC). Indeed in that cas…