Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.E.T. Compagnie v. ACIT

399 ITR 362High Court2017#15847 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.E.T. Compagnie v. ACIT

DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI vs. PRIYTAM PLASCHEM P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6038/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6038/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Vs M/S Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd., Circle-20(1), X-53, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110002 Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp4629G Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meenakshi Dohore, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohore, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

…s Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd., [(2015) 375 ITR 373]. Further decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. [(2012) 342 ITR 169]; Pr. CIT vs. Bikram Singh [(2017) 399 ITR 362 (Del.)] were relied upon. 3. The principle applicable to decide whether the amount can be brought to tax under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act are identity of the investor/ creditor, its credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The initial burden of discharging this is upon the assessee [Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Expor…

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 123/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarvs. Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle Hyderabad. 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan Aabcjh7867C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Yvst Sai, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Inturi Rama Rao, A.M. : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad Dt.05.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 92CSection 92E

…9) Honda Cars India Ltd. - Vs Dy. Commr. Of IT (Delhi High Court) 382 ITR 88 10) ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie Vs UOI (Delhi High Court) 388 ITR 383 11) ESS Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.E.T. Compagnie Vs Asst. Commr. Of IT (Delhi High Court 399 ITR 362 12) Pankaj Extrusion Ltd. - Vs Asst. Commr. Of IT (Gujarat High Court) 10 Taxmann.com 17 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer dt.28.12.2018 has to be read and treated as draft assessment order as per the provisions of section 144C r.w.s. 92CA(4) r.w.s. 143(3) of th…

ESPN STAR SPORTS MAURITIUS S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE,MAURITIUS vs. ADDL. DIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the three appeals are allowed

ITA 5703/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Dinesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT,DR
Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 147Section 234ASection 9(1)Section 92Section 92C

…mpagnie v. Union of India (2016) 388 ITR 383. Not only that, now there is another decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court again in the case of sister concern only, in Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.E.T. Compagnie vs ACIT, since reported in (2017) reported in 399 ITR 362 (Delhi High Court). In all these cases it has been categorically held that AO has erred in law in passing the draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) not withstanding that assessee was not an “eligible assessee” because, no transfer pricing adjustment was made in terms of 92CA(3). He also drew our attention to these judgments placed in the paper book…

ESPN STAR SPORTS MAURITIUS S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE,MAURITIUS vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the three appeals are allowed

ITA 5132/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Dinesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT,DR
Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 147Section 234ASection 9(1)Section 92Section 92C

…mpagnie v. Union of India (2016) 388 ITR 383. Not only that, now there is another decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court again in the case of sister concern only, in Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.E.T. Compagnie vs ACIT, since reported in (2017) reported in 399 ITR 362 (Delhi High Court). In all these cases it has been categorically held that AO has erred in law in passing the draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) not withstanding that assessee was not an “eligible assessee” because, no transfer pricing adjustment was made in terms of 92CA(3). He also drew our attention to these judgments placed in the paper book…

ESPN STAR SPORTS MAURITIUS S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE,MAURITIUS vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the three appeals are allowed

ITA 5131/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Dinesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT,DR
Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 147Section 234ASection 9(1)Section 92Section 92C

…mpagnie v. Union of India (2016) 388 ITR 383. Not only that, now there is another decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court again in the case of sister concern only, in Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.E.T. Compagnie vs ACIT, since reported in (2017) reported in 399 ITR 362 (Delhi High Court). In all these cases it has been categorically held that AO has erred in law in passing the draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) not withstanding that assessee was not an “eligible assessee” because, no transfer pricing adjustment was made in terms of 92CA(3). He also drew our attention to these judgments placed in the paper book…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. XO INFOTECH LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, Appeal of the Department is

ITA 3342/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L.P.Sahu[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Xo Infotech Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, (Now Known As M/S. Saral Mining Ltd.), 304, Saffron Vs. Ward-7(3), Room No.306, Building, Panchvati To Ambawadi Road, Ambawadi C.R.Building, New Delhi. Ellisbeidge,Ahmedabad- 380006.Pan-Aaaxx0059K (Appellant) (Respondent) By Revenue : Shri Vijay Varma, Cit-D.R. By Assessee : Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…re application money. Therefore, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) may be reversed. He has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., 342 ITR 169 and Pr. CIT vs. Bikram Singh (2017) 399 ITR 362 (Del.) 9. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that except notice under section 143(2), no other notice have been received by assessee. In the first notice dated 14.11.2011 (PB-64) even address of ITA No.3342/Del/2013 XO Infotech Ltd., Ahmedabad. the asse…

Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.E.T. Compagnie v. ACIT (399 ITR 362) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax