Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

94 ITD 242Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#4022 most cited

What is Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

A tax treaty is to be interpreted as a whole, meaning its provisions must be construed in harmony with each other, not in isolation.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Hindalco Industries Ltd v ACIT · 94 ITD 242 · tax treaty interpretation · interpretation of tax treaties · harmonious construction of treaty provisions · treaty as a whole · articles of tax treaty · interpretation of international agreements

Also reported as

41 SOT 25469 Taxmann.com 443

Judgments citing Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

DCIT, CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 1047/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

…d, therefore, different articles cannot be read on a standalone basis dehors the scheme of the tax treaty. A coordinate bench of this Tribunal and speaking through one of us (i.e. the Vice President) has, in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs ACIT [(2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mum)], observed that "A tax treaty is to required to be interpreted as a whole, which essentially implies that the provisions of the treaty are required to be construed in harmony with each other," and this principle was reiterated in another coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT Vs Boston Consulting Group Pte Ltd [(2005) 94 ITD 31 (Mum)]…

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 1046/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

…d, therefore, different articles cannot be read on a standalone basis dehors the scheme of the tax treaty. A coordinate bench of this Tribunal and speaking through one of us (i.e. the Vice President) has, in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs ACIT [(2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mum)], observed that "A tax treaty is to required to be interpreted as a whole, which essentially implies that the provisions of the treaty are required to be construed in harmony with each other," and this principle was reiterated in another coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT Vs Boston Consulting Group Pte Ltd [(2005) 94 ITD 31 (Mum)]…

SBS TRANSPOLE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 22(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6166/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6166/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) SBS Transpole Logistics Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 22 (2), Plot No.217, Phase I, Sector 20, New Delhi. Near MDH Building, Gurgaon – 122 016 (Haryana). (PAN : AACCT0779Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11.03.2022 Date of Order : 06.05.2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assess…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 869/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 90Section 90nSection 91

…na SA SV [(2019) 180 ITD 627 (Mum)]: 42. As we deal with the principles of interpretation of tax treaties, it may also be appropriate to refer to some of the observations made by a coordinate bench, in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2005] 94 ITD 242 (Mum.) in the context of principles governing the interpretation of tax treaties. That was a ITA No: 869/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 29 of 49 case in which the coordinate bench, after an elaborate analysis of the related judicial precedents from even outside India and the related first principles, inter alia, observed that "A tax treat…

AMARCHAND & MANGALDAS & SURESH A SHROFF & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2613/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…d, therefore, different articles cannot be read on a standalone basis dehors the scheme of the tax treaty. A coordinate bench of this Tribunal and speaking through one of us (i.e. the Vice President) has, in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs ACIT [(2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mum)], observed that "A tax treaty is to required to be interpreted as a whole, which essentially implies that the provisions of the treaty are required to be construed in harmony with each other," and this principle was reiterated in another coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT Vs Boston Consulting Group Pte Ltd [(2005) 94 ITD 31 (Mum)]…

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…dded that merely because a provision will be rendered infructuous, he should not be shy of giving the treaty a correct literal interpretation. We do not think that will be a correct approach for us. In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2005] 94 ITD 242 (Mum.) this Tribunal had an occasion to set out the principles on the basis of which tax treaties are to be interpretated. Summarzing these principles, and speaking through one of us (i.e., the Accountant Member), this Tribunal has observed as follows : "The school of thought emerging from the above discussions leads us to conclude that the princi…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…dded that merely because a provision will be rendered infructuous, he should not be shy of giving the treaty a correct literal interpretation. We do not think that will be a correct approach for us. In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2005] 94 ITD 242 (Mum.) this Tribunal had an occasion to set out the principles on the basis of which tax treaties are to be interpretated. Summarzing these principles, and speaking through one of us (i.e., the Accountant Member), this Tribunal has observed as follows : "The school of thought emerging from the above discussions leads us to conclude that the princi…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…dded that merely because a provision will be rendered infructuous, he should not be shy of giving the treaty a correct literal interpretation. We do not think that will be a correct approach for us. In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2005] 94 ITD 242 (Mum.) this Tribunal had an occasion to set out the principles on the basis of which tax treaties are to be interpretated. Summarzing these principles, and speaking through one of us (i.e., the Accountant Member), this Tribunal has observed as follows : "The school of thought emerging from the above discussions leads us to conclude that the princi…

ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJ I. B.V. AS TRUSTREE OF ING,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7121/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…ntext and in the light of its objects and purpose— One cannot interpret a tax treaty, or for that purpose even a tax legislation, with dictionary in one hand and tax treaty in another—Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2005) 94 TTJ (Mumbai) 944 : (2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mumbai) followed; Bulmer Ltd. vs. S.A. Bollinger (1972) 2 All ER 1226, IRC vs. Exxon Corporation (1982) STC 356, Union Texas Petroleum Corporation vs. Critchley (1988) STC 69 and Union of India & Anr. vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. (2003) 184 CTR (SC) 450 : (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) relied on (Para 64) Conclusion: To find the meaning of the words…

ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJ I. B.V. AS TRUSTREE OF ING,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7120/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2008-09
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…ntext and in the light of its objects and purpose— One cannot interpret a tax treaty, or for that purpose even a tax legislation, with dictionary in one hand and tax treaty in another—Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2005) 94 TTJ (Mumbai) 944 : (2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mumbai) followed; Bulmer Ltd. vs. S.A. Bollinger (1972) 2 All ER 1226, IRC vs. Exxon Corporation (1982) STC 356, Union Texas Petroleum Corporation vs. Critchley (1988) STC 69 and Union of India & Anr. vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. (2003) 184 CTR (SC) 450 : (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) relied on (Para 64) Conclusion: To find the meaning of the words…

ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJ I. B.V. AS TRUSTREE OF ING,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7119/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2007-08
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…ontext and in the light of its objects and purpose—One cannot interpret a tax treaty, or for that purpose even a tax legislation, with dictionary in one hand and tax treaty in another—Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2005) 94 TTJ (Mumbai) 944 : (2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mumbai) followed; Bulmer Ltd. vs. S.A. Bollinger (1972) 2 All ER 1226, IRC vs. Exxon Corporation (1982) STC 356, Union Texas Petroleum Corporation vs. Critchley (1988) STC 69 and Union of India & Anr. vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. (2003) 184 CTR (SC) 450 : (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) relied on (Para 64) Conclusion: To find the meaning of the words…

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/RJT/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Nov 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 172(3)Section 172(4)

…aning to a term employed in the tax treaty, one must not lose sight of article 3(2) which gives primacy to the context in which the term is used. Elaborating upon this principle, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in the case of Hindalco Industries Limited Vs ACIT [(2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mum)] in paragraph 18 thereof, had observed that : "... the purpose of the relevant provision in the tax treaty is indeed one of the relevant considerations in deciding the contextual meaning. Second, even if it is debatable as to whether contextual meaning of a term has precedence over the domestic tax law meaning of that term, it is also certai…

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 429/RJT/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Nov 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 172(3)Section 172(4)

…aning to a term employed in the tax treaty, one must not lose sight of article 3(2) which gives primacy to the context in which the term is used. Elaborating upon this principle, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in the case of Hindalco Industries Limited Vs ACIT [(2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mum)] in paragraph 18 thereof, had observed that : "... the purpose of the relevant provision in the tax treaty is indeed one of the relevant considerations in deciding the contextual meaning. Second, even if it is debatable as to whether contextual meaning of a term has precedence over the domestic tax law meaning of that term, it is also certai…

JCIT (OSD)(IT) 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MERRILL LYNCH CAPITAL MARKET, ESPANA SASV, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6109/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…items under consideration are concerned". 42. As we deal with the principles of interpretation of tax treaties, it may also be appropriate to refer to some of the observations made by a coordinate bench, in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs ACIT [(2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mum)] in the context of principles governing the interpretation of tax treaties. That was a case in which the coordinate bench, after an elaborate analysis of the related judicial precedents from even outside India and the related first principles, inter alia, observed that “A tax treaty is to required to be interpreted as a whole, which essentia…

JCIT (OSD)(IT) 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MERRILL LYNCH CAPITAL MARKET, ESPANA SASV, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…items under consideration are concerned". 42. As we deal with the principles of interpretation of tax treaties, it may also be appropriate to refer to some of the observations made by a coordinate bench, in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs ACIT [(2005) 94 ITD 242 (Mum)] in the context of principles governing the interpretation of tax treaties. That was a case in which the coordinate bench, after an elaborate analysis of the related judicial precedents from even outside India and the related first principles, inter alia, observed that “A tax treaty is to required to be interpreted as a whole, which essentia…

GRINDWELL NORTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 404/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blea.C.I.T – 9(3)(2) V. M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., 418, 4Th Floor, Leela Business Park, 5Th Level, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -1(3)(2) V. Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Army & Navy Building, Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akram Khan Department By : Shri Kiran Unavekar

For Appellant: Shri Akram KhanFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.C.I.T – 9(3)(2) v. M/s Grindwell Norton Ltd., 418, 4th Floor, Leela Business Park, 5th Level, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 099 PAN: AAACG 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s Grindwell Norton Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax -1(3)(2) v. Room No. 535, 5th Floor, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Army & Navy Building, Mumbai-400 020 3rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAA…

ACIE 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GRINDWELL NORTON LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 347/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blea.C.I.T – 9(3)(2) V. M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., 418, 4Th Floor, Leela Business Park, 5Th Level, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -1(3)(2) V. Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Army & Navy Building, Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akram Khan Department By : Shri Kiran Unavekar

For Appellant: Shri Akram KhanFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.C.I.T – 9(3)(2) v. M/s Grindwell Norton Ltd., 418, 4th Floor, Leela Business Park, 5th Level, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 099 PAN: AAACG 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s Grindwell Norton Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax -1(3)(2) v. Room No. 535, 5th Floor, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Army & Navy Building, Mumbai-400 020 3rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAA…

GRINDWELL NORTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3589/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3589/M/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Grindwell Norton Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit (Osd)-1 Room Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, No.579, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg8752B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Akram KhanFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguni (Sr.DR)
Section 14ASection 32Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3589/M/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Grindwell Norton Ltd. बिधम/ DCIT (OSD)-1 Room Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, No.579, 5th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Army & Navy Building, 3rd Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACG8752B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) Assessee by: Mr. Akram Khan Department by: Shri M. V. Rajguni (Sr.DR) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date…

GOVARDHAN G VANANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-I) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 269/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…1 ITA 269/Mum/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.269/Mum/2016 (Assessment year: 2010-11) Shri Govardhan G Vanani vs DCIT(OSD-I), Central Range-7 112-115, Jewel, TATA RD-2, Mumbai Opera House, Mumbai-4 PAN : AABPV5861F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri BV Jhaveri Respondent by Shri V Vidhyadhar Date of hearing 17-05-2018 Date of pronouncement 15-06-2018 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai da…

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

…ai Tribunal held that where the cost of services is charged and recovered by way of reimbursement, even without any profit element, TDS will be applicable. In case of Cochin Refineries (1996) 222 ITR 354 (Ker.), HNS VSAT Inc 95 ITD 157 (Del ITAT) and Hindalco 94 ITD 242 (Mum) also this was held that TDS is applicable on mere reimbursement of expenses also. So objection of the assessee cannot be accepted. IT(TP)A Nos.475 & 134/Coch/2016. 16 M/s.US Technology Resources Pvt.Ltd. 7. In conformity with the direction of the lower authorities, the Assessing Officer passed the final order. 8. Against the above order,…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2