Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

62 Taxmann.com 79High Court2015#2653 most cited

What is Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT authority for?

Interest cannot be separately charged on outstanding receivables from an associated enterprise if these receivables are an integral part of the underlying international transaction for which the arm's length price has already been determined. Such outstanding receivables are not considered a distinct international transaction.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT · section 92B · outstanding receivables interest · international transaction · arm's length price (ALP) · associated enterprise (AE) · transfer pricing adjustment · receivables not distinct international transaction · inter-company transactions · 62 Taxmann.com 79

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 143(1)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 92BSection 115P

Issues it is cited on

section 92b(1)interest on outstanding receivablescaptive service providerworking capital adjustmentmultiple year datasection 92bresale price methodsection 92afunctional analysisrelated party transactioncomparable companiestransactional net margin method

Judgments citing Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Logica Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal and cross objection filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 505/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 144C

…ess/commercial arrangement between the assessee and its AE’s, by holding outstanding receivables to be an independent international transaction. 3.5.2. Ld.AR placed reliance on decision of Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 79, deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 66 (Del), held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel…

M/S Bt (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 442/Del/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) & I.T.A. No. 302/Del/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Bt (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle 5(1), 11Th Floor, New Delhi Eros Corporate Tower, Opp. International Trade Tower Nehru Place, New Delhi -110 019 Gir / Pan :Aabcc4785E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv. Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2018 Order Per Beena A. Pillai, Jm: Present Appeals Have Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28/12/15 & Order Dated 09/12/16, Passed By Ld. Acit, Circle 5 (1), New Delhi Under Section 144 (3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 920(2)

…” It has been mentioned by Ld.Counsel that there is no functional difference in present year under consideration vis-a-vis immediately preceding Assessment Year. Ld. Counsel submitted that Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 79, deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 66 (Del), held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. 9.2. On the contrary Ld.CIT DR submitted that interest on receivables is an…

M/S. Bt (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 442/Del/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) & I.T.A. No. 302/Del/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Bt (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle 5(1), 11Th Floor, New Delhi Eros Corporate Tower, Opp. International Trade Tower Nehru Place, New Delhi -110 019 Gir / Pan :Aabcc4785E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv. Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2018 Order Per Beena A. Pillai, Jm: Present Appeals Have Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28/12/15 & Order Dated 09/12/16, Passed By Ld. Acit, Circle 5 (1), New Delhi Under Section 144 (3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 920(2)

…” It has been mentioned by Ld.Counsel that there is no functional difference in present year under consideration vis-a-vis immediately preceding Assessment Year. Ld. Counsel submitted that Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 79, deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 66 (Del), held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. 9.2. On the contrary Ld.CIT DR submitted that interest on receivables is an…

Inductis India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1438/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Inductis India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 12(1) 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola New Delhi Tower B Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola New Delhi 110 044 Pan: Aaac18497C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Sh. S.S.Tomar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Hk Chaudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2018

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. HK Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 92D

…avour of the taxpayer.” It has been mentioned by Ld. counsel that there is no functional difference in the present year under consideration vis-a-vis immediately preceding Assessment Year. Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 79, deleted the addition by considering the above principle. Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare Pvt.Ltd (supra) also observed therein as under: “8. In view of the above, a working Capital adjustment appropriately takes into account the outstanding receivable. Therefore, the assessee has undertaken a working capital adjustment to reflect these…