How many judgments cite Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.?

100 judgments on BharatTax cite Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (398 ITR 66), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C(13), Section 92B, Section 10AA, Section 143(2), Section 271(1)(c).

Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

398 ITR 66High Court2017#1112 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Not every item of receivables appearing in the accounts of an entity dealing with foreign associated enterprises automatically constitutes an international transaction under Section 92B. A separate adjustment for interest on outstanding receivables is not permissible if the working capital adjustment has already factored in their impact.

100

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. · Kusum Health Care · Section 92B · Section 92CA · interest on outstanding receivables · international transaction · transfer pricing adjustment · working capital adjustment · associated enterprises · receivables not international transaction · no further interest adjustment on receivables

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B Section 10AA Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CA Section 92CA(3)

Issues it is cited on

interest on outstanding receivables section 92b(1)working capital adjustment captive service provider section 92b multiple year data comparable companies most appropriate method transfer pricing adjustment associated enterprises cost plus method related party transaction

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4400/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 154Section 80GSection 92C

…e did not arise. Against the said judgment, Pr. CIT v. Bachtel India (P.) Ltd. CC No.(s) 4956 of 2017 preferred by the revenue was dismissed vide order dated 21-7-2017. 6.5. In the case of Pr. CIT v. Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 431/[2017] 398 ITR 66 (Delhi), a coordinate bench of this court also dealt with the amendment brought in Section 928 of the Act by way of insertion of an explanation and held thus: 6.6 That being so, in our view the questions 2.3 and 2.4 proposed by the Applicant/revenue cannot be treated as substantial question of law for present purposes. Ground No. 15: The Ld. AO/TP…

WARNER MEDIA INDIA P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1384/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Warner Media India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit 5Th Floor, Radisson Commercial Circle 25(1) Plaza, National Highway No.8, New Delhi Mahipalpur, Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aaact3821H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 244A

…on account of outstanding overdue receivables, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2014-15 in assessee’s own case following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (398 ITR 66) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Copy of the order of the Tribunal is placed at pages 1020 and 1021 of the paper book. 17. Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.6627/Del/2018 for the AY 2014-15 by order dated 04.02.2019 held as under :- 14.…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

…e benchmarking the main international transaction, no separate upward adjustment is warranted for notional interest on outstanding receivables. The Bench relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. [(2017) 398 ITR 66 (Del)], where it was held that once working capital adjustment is made under TNMM, no separate addition for outstanding receivables is justified. The Bench rejected the reliance placed by the Revenue on the earlier ITAT rulings (such as Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. and Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd.) which were rendered prior to Kusum Healthcare’s decision…

ERM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT (JAO- DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI), DELHI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5459/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shriyogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5459/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Erm India Private Limited, Assessment Unit, 3Rd Floor, Tower B, Building No.10, Vs. Income Tax Department, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, (Jurisdictional Ao: Deputy Gurugram, Haryana. Commissioner Of Income-Tax), Pan No.Aaace1502C Circle 7(1), Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 92B

…AR relied on the order in assessee’s own case for AY 2016- 17 [ITA No.513/Del/2021] in which this issue was decided in favour of the 6 assessee at para 11. It was pointed out that the Coordinate Bench had relied on the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Limited (398 ITR 66 (Del)) to hold that the addition made on account of interest on delayed receivables was not sustainable for the year under consideration. It was also pointed out that the working capital adjustments of the assessee were compared to the independent comparable companies and it was revealed that the working capital adjusted margin for the assessee…

TECHNIP INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 9852/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

…of outstanding receivables. Cases where it is held that where the working capital adjustment has already factored in the impact of receivables, any further adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is not permissible  PCIT vs Kusum Healthcare: [2017] 398 ITR 66 (Del)  Phoenix Lamps Ltd. vs. DCIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 376 (Allahabad)  Gates India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT: [2024] 166 taxmann.com 29 (Delhi - Trib.)  TCI-GO Vacation India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT: [2024] 159 taxmann.com 710 (Delhi - Trib.)  EPAM Systems India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 335 (Hyderabad - Trib.)  Teejay India (P.) Ltd. v…

TECHNIP INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 6390/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2610/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Philips India Limited Rajarhat 4A, 5Th Floor, Ecospace The Dcit Business Park, Premises A4 Ii, Circle 11(1), Aayakar Bhavan, New Town, Chakpachuria, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700156 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM M/s Philips India Limited Rajarhat 4A, 5th floor, Ecospace The DCIT Business Park, Premises A4 II, Circle 11(1), Aayakar Bhavan, New Town, Chakpachuria, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700156 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCP9487A Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, AR Revenue by : Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR Date of hearing: 23.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee again…

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 975/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195Section 234ASection 40Section 92C

…rticularly, when the working capital adjustment have already been made by the appellant-company. In this regard, he relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., 66 taxmann.com 6 and Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Lted., 398 ITR 66 (Del.). Learned Counsel for the Assessee, in the alternative, submitted that, if at all, interest needs to be computed on overdue receivables, then, LIBOR plus appropriate basis points should be adopted as against SBI PLR rate adopted by the TPO. 18. MS. U. Minichandran, learned CIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of t…

TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE, 7(1)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1887/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: S/Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Vinay Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Suganthamala T M, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 40Section 92C

…g provided by the assessee at page 46 & 48 of the TP Study Report. Naturally the adjustment on account of interest on overdue receivables would subsume in the working capital adjustment. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., 398 ITR 66 (Del) also supports the above view. IT(TP)A No.1887/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 14 14. In view of the above facts, we restore this ground of appeal to the file of ld. TPO to consider the submission of the assessee for granting of the working capital adjustment and then decide the issue afresh. If the working capital adjustment is granted to the assessee…

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 9205/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

…d not file the details before the Ld. TPO and the ld. CIT(A) also did not verify the above contention/submission of the assessee. On the issue of interest on receivables the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.(2017) 398 ITR 66(Del.) in para no.10 and 11 has observed as under:- “10. The court is unable to agree with the above submissions. The inclusion in the Explanation to section 92B of the Act of the expression "receivables" does not mean that dehors the context every item of "receivables" appearing in the accounts of an international transaction. There may be a del…

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI

ITA 1575/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2Section 92C

…d not file the details before the Ld.\nTPO and the ld. CIT(A) also did not verify the above\ncontention/submission of the assessee. On the issue of interest\non receivables the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT\nvs Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.(2017) 398 ITR 66(Del.) in para\nno.10 and 11 has observed as under:-\n“10. The court is unable to agree with the above submissions.\nThe inclusion in the Explanation to section 92B of the Act of the\nexpression \"receivables\" does not mean that dehors the context\nevery item of \"receivables\" appearing in the accounts of an\nentity, which may have dealings with…

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 4328/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…d that the\nnecessary adjustments has already been made in the cost of sale of\nhybrid seeds. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 92 \nKusum Helathcare Pvt. Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 66 (Delhi) after\nconsidering these facts has held as under:-\n(i) The inclusion in the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act of\nthe expression \"receivables\" does not mean that de hors the\ncontext every item of \"receivables\" appearing in the\naccounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign\nAEs would automatically be characterized a…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 927/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…terest is charged\nfrom AEs on outstanding receivables. It is further claimed that the\nnecessary adjustments has already been made in the cost of sale of\nhybrid seeds. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.\n\nKusum Helathcare Pvt. Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 66 (Delhi) after\nconsidering these facts has held as under:-\n\n(i) The inclusion in the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act of\nthe expression \"receivables\" does not mean that de hors the\ncontext every item of \"receivables\" appearing in the\naccounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign\nAEs would automatically be characterized…

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2587/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…ed that the\nnecessary adjustments has already been made in the cost of sale of\nhybrid seeds. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 92\nKusum Helathcare Pvt. Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 66 (Delhi) after\nconsidering these facts has held as under:-\n(i) The inclusion in the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act of\nthe expression \"receivables\" does not mean that de hors the\ncontext every item of \"receivables\" appearing in the\naccounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign\nAEs would automatically be characterized a…

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

ITA 704/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…rged\nfrom AEs on outstanding receivables. It is further claimed that the\nnecessary adjustments has already been made in the cost of sale of\nhybrid seeds. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.\n\nPage | 92\n\nKusum Helathcare Pvt. Ltd. reported in 398 ITR 66 (Delhi) after\nconsidering these facts has held as under:-\n\n(i) The inclusion in the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act of\nthe expression \"receivables\" does not mean that de hors the\ncontext every item of \"receivables\" appearing in the\naccounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign\nAEs would automatically be characterized…

UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INOCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3945/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)(d)Section 43(3)

…ege the existence of any intent on the part of assessee in providing any benefit to the AE by allowing the delayed payment. He further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Kusum Healthcare Pvt.Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 66 (Delhi). 29. On the other hand, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue supports the order of AO/TPO/DRP and submits that there was a delay in recovery of outstanding receivables and therefore, the lower authorities have rightly make the adjustment on account of delayed payment of receivables which deserves to be upheld. 30. We have heard the rival contentions…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE S/SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt.Year : 2015-16 ACIT, Cir.2(1)(1) M/s.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. PAN : AAACI 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/s.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd ACIT, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vej…

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

AB INBEV GCC SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE, KARNATAKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1635/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.1635/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 92B

…ion of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2017) 398 ITR 66, held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which was subsequently upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also…

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1960/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT DR

Section 92Section 92C

…on'ble Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare (P). Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 79 deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 431/[2017] 398 ITR 66, held that, no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 66 taxmann.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also uphe…

Showing 1–20 of 100 · Page 1 of 5