Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

30 SOT 374Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#462 most cited

What is Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

201

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT · CIT(A) powers · Section 263 · revisional power · scope of appeal · usurpation of power · Assessing Officer's case · ITAT Special Bench · Section 250 · Commissioner (Appeals)

Also reported as

313 ITR 263122 ITD 216122 TTJ 577117 Taxmann.com 578

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 144C(3)Section 139(1)Section 1961Section 250Section 143(2)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 120(4)(b)section 120(1)section 2(7a)section 163section 115jafees for included servicessection 120section 192tax treatysection 9(1)(vii)section 156

Judgments citing Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

Ritin Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 41/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…by pointing out to the purchase bills and the date of payment etc. when the AO and the Pr. CIT have not found fault or raised any suspicion on this issue. He submitted that the special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [2009] 313 ITR 263 (AT) (Mumbai) (SB) has held that CIT(D/R) cannot build up a new case for the Revenue, while defending an order. He prayed for relief. 8 I.T.A. Nos. 41 to 47/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritin Lakhmani & Others. 8. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record…

L, Oreal India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 7 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7204/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhl‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle-7(1)(2) A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Aayakar Bhavan, Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, M.K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Vs. Pan: Aaacl0738K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 .07.2020 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Seth (AR)For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 4Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…ionally added. The Tribunal being the last fact-finding Authority, a duty is cast on him bring to the notice of Bench, all facts as apparent from records and from orders of the lower Authorities etc. Reliance in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB) is totally misplaced. It is submitted that the ld. DR has only supported and 30 ITA No. 7204 Mum 2019-L‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. elaborated the stand of the AO/TPO with the help of PB filed by the assessee. In without prejudice submissions the ld AR for the assessee that indirect benefits were also obtained by the assessee company, f…

Jani Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2640/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Rifaur Rahman (Am) Jani Properties Pvt Ltd Vs Ito, 2(2)(1), Gkdj & Associates, Cas Aayakar Bhavan, 333, Sohrab Hall, 21, Sassoon M.K. Road, Road, Opp Jehangir Hospital, Mumbai -400020 Pune-411 001 Pan : Aaacj7356D Appellant Respondednt

Section 115Section 115JSection 115OSection 154Section 234B

…s at any time. The other fact that only 6 months is provided for completion of assessment proceedings from the date of initiation indicates that the initiation itself should be within a reasonable time." 8. In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs DCIT (30 SOT 374), Special Bench of this Tribunal, dealing with similar plea of the assessee in the context of time limit being read into Section 201, observed as follows: “The Id. DR has contended that the Tribunal is not competent to lay down any time limit. If this contention is brought to the logical conclusion it will mean that the unlimited time will be ava…

Schawk India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 103/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 195

…sulting Group Pte. Ltd. (2005) 94 ITD 31 and submitted that the Mumbai Bench has specifically considered the Singapore-India (2017) 78 taxmann.com 5 and also decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 30 SOT 374. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 504. 4 I.T.A. Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/18 3. We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld. D.R. submitted that he is placing reliance on the observation made by the Assessing O…

Schawk India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 101/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 195

…sulting Group Pte. Ltd. (2005) 94 ITD 31 and submitted that the Mumbai Bench has specifically considered the Singapore-India (2017) 78 taxmann.com 5 and also decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 30 SOT 374. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 504. 4 I.T.A. Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/18 3. We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld. D.R. submitted that he is placing reliance on the observation made by the Assessing O…

Schawk India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 100/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 195

…sulting Group Pte. Ltd. (2005) 94 ITD 31 and submitted that the Mumbai Bench has specifically considered the Singapore-India (2017) 78 taxmann.com 5 and also decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 30 SOT 374. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in DIT v. Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 504. 4 I.T.A. Nos.100, 101 & 103/Chny/18 3. We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld. D.R. submitted that he is placing reliance on the observation made by the Assessing O…

Netcracker Technology Solutions Llc, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir (It) 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 783/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.783/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Netcracker Technology Solutions Llc Dcit- Circle-3(3)(1) (Formerly Known As Convergys Information International Taxation Management Group Inc.) Mumbai. बनाम/ C/O. Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pwc House, Plot 18/A Guru Nanak Road, (Station Road) Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-8990-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Hirali Desai-Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Samuel Darse-Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01/10/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9

…. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] there is no imparting as contemplated in the Treaties. Similar are the propositions on the issue of "make available" in the decisions in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Raymond Ltd. v. DCIT 86 ITD 791; Cable and Wireless Networks India P. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 72.' 20. We find that in the DTAA between India and the USA the make available clause is in existence. The article 12(4) of the treaty is reproduced as under: 'For purposes of this Article, "fees for included services" means payments of any kind to any pers…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) (TDS) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1695/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanthe Tata Power Co. Ltd. Income Tax Officer Corporate Center, (International Taxation)-Tds (2) Block „B‟, 5Th Floor, 34, Air India Building, Sant Tukaram Road, Vs. Mumbai - 21 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400 009

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 195Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…not be treated as being in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had relied on the order of the „Special Bench‟ of the ITAT, Mumbai „H‟ in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT, TDS-Range-1(1), Mumbai (2010) 122 ITD 216 (Mum) (SB). The ld. A.R took us through the relevant observations of the Tribunal at Para18.12 of the said order. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal in the aforesaid case had observed that as neither the revenue had framed the assessment in the case of the non-resident payee nor such time limitation for taking necessary action was…

Netcracker Technology Solutions Inc., Mumbai vs. Asst DIT Cir (It)1(2)

In the result appeals of all the assessment years are allowed

ITA 1701/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna with Miss. Hirali Desai (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse CIT-DR and Sh. Manish K. Singh ( Sr DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 9

…. ITO(TDS)] & ITA Nos. 4076 TO 4079/Del/2012 [ITO(TDS) v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.] there is no imparting as contemplated in the Treaties. Similar are the propositions on the issue of "make available" in the decisions in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT 313 ITR 263; Raymond Ltd. v. DCIT 86 ITD 791; Cable and Wireless Networks India P. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 72.' 20. We find that in the DTAA between India and the USA the make available clause is in existence. The article 12(4) of the treaty is reproduced as under: 'For purposes of this Article, "fees for included services" means payments of any kind to any pe…

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5678/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla with Shri Pratik Poddar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya
Section 254(1)

…se. The learned AR further submits that the decisions of hotel industry which are directly applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was held that fees for reservation systems cannot be treated as royalty (i) DIT Versus Shelton international INC 313 ITR 263 (Delhi ) 14 ITA No. 5678 Mum 2016 & 764 Mum 2017-Renaissance Services BV (ii) Bass International Holding NV Vs JCIT (ITA No. 4341/ Mum/ 2002. (iii) Six Continents Hotel Inc Versus DCIT 11 taxmann.com 332 (Mum). 18. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld DR for the revenue further submits…

Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1736/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleericsson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit 4Th Floor, Dhakha House, Circle-8(2) 18/17, W.E.A Pusa Lance, Karol New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi Aaace0138N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…s never the case of the DRP/TPO, is trying to build an altogether a new case, that too without an appeal against the order of the DRP. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 122 ITD 216 12 (SB), wherein the Court held that the DR has no jurisdiction to go beyond the orders passed by the lower authorities. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Tribunal cannot take away what the lower authorities have granted. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mcorp Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 309 ITR 43…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes in the light of directions contained hereinabove

ITA 4824/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S Tata Motors Vs. Acit, Cir-2(1), Mumbai-20 Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Acit, 2(1), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Motors Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D.Mistri & Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri R.Manjunatha Swamy, Citdr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

For Appellant: i) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect of provision for d
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234B

…Ltd. (229 ITR 383) (SC) • Jute Corporation Of I ndia Ltd. (187 ITR 688) (SC) • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (1991TR 351) (Bom FB) • Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt Ltd (349 ITR 336) (Bom) • Ramco Cements Ltd (373 ITR 146) (Mad) • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (30 SOT 374) (Mum SB) In view of the above, we request your Honour's to kindly consider our Additional Alternate Legal Ground of Appeal and decide on merits after providing Assessee a personal hearing in the matter.” Further, the assessee vide letter dated 25.04.2019, has filed supplementary legal grounds of appeal, as a matter of abundant caution which reads…

Tata Moters Limited (Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd.), Mumbai vs. A CIT, Cir..-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes in the light of directions contained hereinabove

ITA 3334/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S Tata Motors Vs. Acit, Cir-2(1), Mumbai-20 Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Acit, 2(1), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/S Tata Motors Limited(Formerly Known As Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd), Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2727 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri J.D.Mistri & Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri R.Manjunatha Swamy, Citdr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

For Appellant: i) Adjustment to book profit computation u/s.115JB In respect of provision for d
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 234B

…Ltd. (229 ITR 383) (SC) • Jute Corporation Of I ndia Ltd. (187 ITR 688) (SC) • Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (1991TR 351) (Bom FB) • Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt Ltd (349 ITR 336) (Bom) • Ramco Cements Ltd (373 ITR 146) (Mad) • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd (30 SOT 374) (Mum SB) In view of the above, we request your Honour's to kindly consider our Additional Alternate Legal Ground of Appeal and decide on merits after providing Assessee a personal hearing in the matter.” Further, the assessee vide letter dated 25.04.2019, has filed supplementary legal grounds of appeal, as a matter of abundant caution which reads…

The ACIT RG 10(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Netafim Irrigation India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3668/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh

…epresentative cannot make out a new case, which is not the case of the Transfer Pricing Officer, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decision:– 12 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. i) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2009] 122 TTJ 577 (Mum.)(SB); and ii) CIT v/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [2014] 365 ITR 560 (Bom.). 11. Further, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, RBI/SIA approval is a valid CUP and can be used to bench mark the transactions has been approved in various judicial precedents. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) M. Spicer Indi…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Amol Dicalite Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R
Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D ’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 539/AHD/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1246/AHD/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad PAN : AABCA2807K (Applicant) (Respondent) : Revenue by Ms. Sonia Kumar, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 29/01/2019 घो…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Amol Dicalite Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1246/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R
Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D ’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 539/AHD/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1246/AHD/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad PAN : AABCA2807K (Applicant) (Respondent) : Revenue by Ms. Sonia Kumar, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 29/01/2019 घो…

Zaki Ahmed Farooqui, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 849/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) as well as the decision of Mumbai Bench of Shri Zakki Ahmed Farooqui, Jaipur. the Tribunal in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT, 122 TTJ 577 (Mumbai) (Special Bench). Thus the ld. A/R has pleaded that the additional ground raised by the assessee may be admitted for adjudication. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has vehemently opposed the additional ground raised by the assessee at this stage and submitted that when the assessee has not explained the reasons which had prevented t…

The Asst. CIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Best India Yobacco Suppliers Pvt.Ltd, Guntur

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 238/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.238/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Acit Vs. M/S Best India Tobacco Circle-1(1) Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Guntur D.No.9-11-1, Kothapet Guntur [Pan :Aaacb9184B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co.No.59/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.238/Viz/2017) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) M/S Best India Tobacco Acit Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1) D.No.9-11-1, Kothapet Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaacb9184B]

For Respondent: Shri V.Appala Raju, DR
Section 194Section 194C(6)Section 40

…s held that no TDS is required to be made on the reimbursement of expenses when the agent raised separate bills for the actual expenses incurred. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’be ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. DCIT [313 ITR 263]. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee debited the sum of Rs.1,58,38,236/- towards charges of tobacco division. The assessee made the payments to two parties namely, M/s M.Sherif & Sons Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Prakash Shipping Agencies (in short Shipping Agent) without deducting the tax at source. The assessee company submitted before the Ld.CIT(A)…

Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1466/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ai [2010] 127 ITD 204- Mumbai ITAT ii) MCorp Global P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC) iii) Mckinsey Knowledge Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 164 (Delhi - Trib.) iv) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT - Mumbai IT AT - Special Bench [2010] 122 ITD 216 (Mumbai) (SB) v) Emission AB- Delhi ITAT- 20/56 SOT 177 vi) ITO vs. Anant Y. Chavan [2009] 126 TTJ (Pune) 984 vii) American Express (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT- [2017] 83 taxmann.com 345 (Delhi - Trib.) viii) Mckinsey Knowledge Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi – Trib) The Ld. AR pointed out that in the recent decisions in…

Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6310/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ai [2010] 127 ITD 204- Mumbai ITAT ii) MCorp Global P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 434 (SC) iii) Mckinsey Knowledge Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 164 (Delhi - Trib.) iv) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. DCIT - Mumbai IT AT - Special Bench [2010] 122 ITD 216 (Mumbai) (SB) v) Emission AB- Delhi ITAT- 20/56 SOT 177 vi) ITO vs. Anant Y. Chavan [2009] 126 TTJ (Pune) 984 vii) American Express (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT- [2017] 83 taxmann.com 345 (Delhi - Trib.) viii) Mckinsey Knowledge Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi – Trib) The Ld. AR pointed out that in the recent decisions in…

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (30 SOT 374) — Cited in 201 Judgments | BharatTax