Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bnp Paribas V. Acit (International Taxation) 1 North Avenue, Maker Maxity Circle – 1(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 1810A, 18Th Floor Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacb4868Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

…was payment to self, which did not give rise to any income as per the Income-tax Act. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT (Central) 24 ITR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dresdner Bank AG vs. Add1. CIT 108 ITD 375, he held that the in…

L & T Mhps Boilers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm L & T Mhps Boilers Private Limited Acit-2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, L & T House, Mumbai Vs. N. M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcl 2635 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) &

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM L & T MHPS Boilers Private Limited ACIT-2(2)(1) 2nd Floor, L & T House, Mumbai Vs. N. M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 PAN/GIR No. AABCL 2635 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) & ITA Nos. 4767/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) L & T MHPS Turbine Generators ACIT-2(2)(1) Private Limited Mumbai 2nd Floor, L & T House, Vs. N. M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 PAN/GIR No. AABCL 2729 F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by : Smt. Shailja Rai & Shri…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cooperative Babobank Ua., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…ting that a branch and HO are one person for taxation purposes. The amount received by the HO from India branch is receipt from self and cannot be treated as income. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble SC decision in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 and some High Court decisions. Reliance is also placed on various decisions on the issue like decision of the Kolkata High Court in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV 198 Taxman 376 (SLP dismissed by Hon'ble SC on 03.08.2012) and Special Bench decision of jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (2012) (136 ITD 66). It…

Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cooperative Rabobank Ua, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…ting that a branch and HO are one person for taxation purposes. The amount received by the HO from India branch is receipt from self and cannot be treated as income. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble SC decision in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 and some High Court decisions. Reliance is also placed on various decisions on the issue like decision of the Kolkata High Court in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV 198 Taxman 376 (SLP dismissed by Hon'ble SC on 03.08.2012) and Special Bench decision of jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (2012) (136 ITD 66). It…

Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cooperative Rabobank Ua, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…ting that a branch and HO are one person for taxation purposes. The amount received by the HO from India branch is receipt from self and cannot be treated as income. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble SC decision in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 and some High Court decisions. Reliance is also placed on various decisions on the issue like decision of the Kolkata High Court in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV 198 Taxman 376 (SLP dismissed by Hon'ble SC on 03.08.2012) and Special Bench decision of jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (2012) (136 ITD 66). It…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

…ooks is that this theory of tax neutrality vis- à-vis intra-company payments and incomes, whatever be its relevance or irrelevance in the cross-border situations, finds its support from judicial precedents in the cases of Sir Kikabhai Premchand Vs CIT [(1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC)] and Betts Hartley Huett & Co Ltd Vs CIT [(1979) 116 ITR 425 (Cal)], is in the context of the computation of profits under the Income Tax Act. This theory would not, therefore, extend to the computation of profits attributable to a permanent establishment under the scheme of the tax treaties. The five- member bench decision, in the case of Su…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

…looks is that this theory of tax neutrality vis-à-vis intra-company payments and incomes, whatever be its relevance or irrelevance in the cross-border situations, finds its support from judicial precedents in the cases of Sir Kikabhai Premchand Vs CIT [(1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC)] and Betts CO Nos.: 113/Mum/2016 and 36/Mum/ 2020 ITA No. 6993/Mum/2012; Assessment year 2007-08 Page 21 of 29 Hartley Huett & Co Ltd Vs CIT [(1979) 116 ITR 425 (Cal)], is in the context of the computation of profits under the Income Tax Act. This theory would not, therefore, extend to the computation of profits attributable to a permanent e…

Suprerior Financial Consultancy Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble&

…to himself. A sale contemplates a sale and a purchaser. If a person revalues his goods and shows a higher value for them in his books, he cannot be considered as having sold these goods and made profits therefrom, (b) In Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1954] 24 ITR 506 (SC), the principle that ‘a man cannot trade with himself has been considered favourably. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the assessee was right in entering the cost value of the silver and shares at the date of the withdrawal, because it was not a business transaction and by that act the business made no profit or gain, nor did it sustain a l…

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)- Range 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Bnp Paribas Deputy Commissioner Of Income Bnp Paribas House,1 North Tax (International Taxation) Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Range – 1(3)(1), R. No.527, Vs. 5Th Floor, Air India Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan – Aaacb4868Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri F.V. Irani, A.R Respondent By: Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2021 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Dated 30.10.2017 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

…was payment to self, which did not give rise to any income as per the Income-tax Act. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT (Central) 24 ITR 506 as well as the decision of Kolkata Special Bench of ITA No.7458/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 7 M/s BNP Paribas Vs. DCIT (IT) Range-1(3)(1) the ITAT in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax 98 TTJ 295. The contention of the assessee, however, was not accepted by the Ld. CIT (A) and relying on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITA…