Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. ACIT

167 TTJ 204Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#16377 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Also reported as

34 Taxmann 19

Judgments citing Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. ACIT

ESSAR PORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1831/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Essar Ports Ltd. Dcit, 5(1)(2) (Formerly Known As Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, cit D.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 92C

…are as a co-guarantor at 1.5% [½ of 3%]. 14. Aggrieved, the assessee has assailed the addition of corporate guarantee commission @ 3% by the DRP. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Everest Kento Cylinder Ltd. Vs . ACIT (2015) 167 TTJ 204 (Mum), had held, that corporate guarantee commission charged by the assessee from its AE @ 0.5% was adequate. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal had thereafter been approved by the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay. Also, in order to drive home his aforesaid claim that the determination of ALP of corporate guarant…

PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5471/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 80I

…:– i) CIT v/s Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd., 374 ITR 516 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd., 231 taxmann.com 401 (Del.); iii) CIT v/s Aurinpro Solutions Ltd., ITA no.1869/2014 dated 06.09.2017 (Bom.); and iv) Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v/s ACIT, 167 TTJ 204 (Mum.). 70. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, the AE of the assessee is located in Switzerland and the loan availed by the AE is also in the currency of its residence. It is well settled, in case of such loan availed by the AE in foreign currency, the appropriate method for bench marking the inte…

IDFC SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7274/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7274/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ M/S. Idfc Securities Ltd. Dcit, Range-4(1) C-32, G-Block, Aayakar Bhavan, Naman Chambers, Mumbai-400020 V. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaack1586E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…invested Rs. 72.64 crores. It was contended that the said growth funds are to be excluded while computing disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A. The learned Senior counsel for the assessee had also relied upon three decisions of Hon‟ble tribunal , as under:- 1. 167 TTJ 204 (Mum-Trib) Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd v Asst. CIT 2. 43 CCH 348 (Mum-Trib) Manugraph India Ltd v DCIT 3. ITA No. 155/Mum/2014- Mumbai Tribunal in Savita Oil Technologies Ltd v DCIT The Ld. DR relied upon the appellate order of the CIT-A. I.T.A. No.7274/Mum/2016 6. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. The cont…

DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FOODS AND INNS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection of assessee stands allowed

ITA 4577/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘F’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Amarjit Singh, JM ITA No.4577/Mum/2015 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax M/s.Foods and Inns Limited बनाम/ Circle 14(1)(2) Foods & Inns Building Mumbai. Sion Trombay Road, Punjabwadi Vs. Deonar, Mumbai – 400 088. PAN : AAACF0521C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) CO No.87/Mum/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/s.Foods and Inns Limited Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax बनाम/ Foods & Inns Building Circle 14(1)(2) Sion Trombay Road, Punjabwadi Mumbai. Vs. Deo…

MAHINDRA INTERTRADE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Shah with Ms. Vaibhavi Patel (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “dsdsdsds” खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - ‘K’ BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं iou iou iou "संह,"या"यक सद"य iou Before S/Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No. 269/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 M/s Mahindra Intertrade Ltd. DCIT , Circle 2(2) Mahindra Towers, 6th Floor, बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Vs. PAN: AACCM4745P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Bhavin Shah with Ms. Vaibhavi Patel (AR) राज"व ओर से / Revenue by : Shri…

VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1310/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…ITAT) (vii) Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.1354/Mum/2014 (Mum ITAT) and (viii) Arshiya International Limited Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 659/Mum/2013 (Mum ITAT). He pointed out that in the earlier decision of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in (2012) 34 Taxmann 19, this 10 M/s. Videcon Industries Ltd. Tribunal has upheld the guarantee commission rate of 0.5% which now stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Thus, at the most even an adjustment is called for the same should be between 0.25% and 0.50%. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT, DR Shri N. K. Chand has given a detail written submissions…