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

398 ITR 66High Court2017#1107 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 366,339 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 92BSection 10AASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CASection 92CA(3)

Issues it is cited on

interest on outstanding receivablessection 92b(1)working capital adjustmentcaptive service providersection 92bmultiple year datacomparable companiesmost appropriate methodtransfer pricing adjustmentassociated enterprisescost plus methodrelated party transaction

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

Alcatel Lucent India Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 15, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ankul Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…id to have been subsumed in the working capital adjustment analysis. Hence, it is pleaded that separate imputation of interest on the outstanding receivables was not warranted. Reliance in this regard is placed on PCIT- V vs. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 66 (Delhi)/ [2018] 300 CTR 343 (Delhi). The assessee further contests application of SBI PLR rate +300 basis points. 8. However, the DRP was not convinced. It emphasized upon the amendment by Finance Act, 2012 regarding insertion with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 and explanation (i)(c) of section 92B. It also distinguished the Hon’ble Delhi…

M/S. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2582/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

…n of Hon’ble 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. reported in (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 vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also upheld…

Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 209/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Unit -5, 3Rd Floor, The Deputy Explorer Building, Commissioner Of International Tech Income Tax, Park, Circle – 1(1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaeca2635C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

…f this submission on following decisions. 1) Avnet India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2016) 65 taxmann.com 187. 2) Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 79 which has been upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in (2017) 398 ITR 66. 9.3 Alternatively, it was submitted that if at all, an adjustment has to be made, an appropriate benchmarking has to be carried Page 38 IT(TP)A No. 209/Bang/2021 out and the interest ought to be adopted based on the LIBOR rate. 9.4 It has been submitted by Ld.AR that outstanding receivables are closely linked to main transaction and so the same…

Bsc C&C Jv, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

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

ITA 705/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.705/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Bsc C&C Jv Assessing Officer, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Vs. National E-Assessment New Delhi. Centre, Delhi. Pan No. Aadfb8115G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80I

…r sum receivable and was subsequently written off in 2017-18 to prove the contention that it is neither money advanced nor sum receivable. 33. At this stage the observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Kusum Healthcare (P) Ltd. (398 ITR 66) are very much relevant and they are as follows: “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 entity, which may have dealings with foreign ass…

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

…n of 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 Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order in Pr. CIT v. Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 37…

Global Logic India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Tpo-2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ribunal to hold that the entire outstanding receivables constitute an international transaction. The reliance by the assessee on the decision of court dated April 25, 2017 in I. I.A. 765 of 2016 (Principle CIT vs. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2017] 398 ITR 66 (Delhi) (hereafter “Kusum Heath Care”) is apt. There are several factors which need to be considered before holding that every receivable is an international transaction and it require an assessment on the working capital of the assessee. Applying the decision in Kusum Healthcare (supra), question (Hi) is answered in affirmative, i.e. in favour of…

Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 290/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 12Th & 13Th Floor, Commissioner Of Peridot Block, Bagmane Income Tax, World Technology Centre Circle 3(1)(1), Sez, Vs. Bangalore. Marthalli Road, Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aafcg8223M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 21/02/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 244ASection 270ASection 92B

…hcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com Page 7 of 17 IT(TP)A No. 290/Bang/2022 79, 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…

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 292/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

…n of Hon’ble 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. reported in (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 vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also upheld…

Aquity Solutions India Pvt.Ltd(Formerly Known As Mmodal Global Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Ci.T.15(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 713/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande
Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)

…foresaid benchmarking has already considered the impact of delayed receivables and thus no further adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is required. In this regard, we find that Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs Kusum Healthcare (P) Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 66 (Delhi) observed as under: “With the assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its pricing/profitability vis-a-vis that of its comparables, any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and re-characterised the transaction. Thi…

Medreich Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 451/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 451/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Medreich Ltd., No. 12/8, Medreich The Assistant House, Commissioner Of Saraswati Ammal Income Tax, Street, Central Circle – Maruti Seva Nagar, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm1458Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore Dated 26/04/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act) In The Manner Passed

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

…n of Hon’ble 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. reported in (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 vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also upheld…

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate
Section 143(2)

…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 India vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon’able Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also upheld b…

ACIT Spl.Range-05, New Delhi vs. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6013/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: C.M. Garg & Sh. N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit M/S. Kusum Healthcare Special Range-05 Vs Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi D-158A, Phase-I, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-44 Pan No.Aabck7043B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C

…ts and by taking interest rate 4.683 percent an adjustment of Rs.2,66,13,334/- was made by the TPO. 8. The adjustment was agitated before the CIT(A) who deleted the TP adjustment following the decision by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assesee’s own case in 398 ITR 66 for A.Y.2010-11. 9. The contention of the DR that facts of the year under consideration are different from the facts of earlier assessment years is without any basis as we find that the working capital adjustment is based on the same lines as was done in earlier assessment years, therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra) and…

M/S. Tivo Tech Private Limited (Formerly Known As Veveo (India) Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 237/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.237/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2016-17 M/s. TiVo Tech Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner [formerly Veveo (India) Private Ltd.), of Income Tax, 10th Floor, Primrose 7B, Circle 7(1)(1), Embassy Tech Village, Bangalore. Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahalli Village, Bangalore – 560 103. PAN: AABCV 9504G ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…n of 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 Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order in Pr. CIT v. Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 37…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…n of 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 Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order in Pr. CIT v. Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 37…

Ntt Data Fa Insurance Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 261/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.261/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…dition by considering the above principle, and subsequently IT(TP)A No.261/Bang/2021 NTT Data FA Insurance Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 33 of 37 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 Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order in Pr. CIT v. Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 37…

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…n of 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 Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order in Pr. CIT v. Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 37…

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

…n of 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 Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order in Pr. CIT v. Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 37…

Arm Embedded Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: 2.1 Rejecting the value of international transaction of provision of SWD and proFor Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

…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., reported in (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 India vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'able Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also upheld b…

M/S. Meritor C vs. India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 249/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…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 India vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon’able Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also upheld b…