Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…following celebrated decisions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court:- a) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 82 ITR 363 (SC) b) Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd vs CIT reported in 227 ITR 172 (SC) c) Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT reported in 372 ITR 605 (SC) 2.8. The ld. DR before us referred to Clauses 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.9, 7.14, 7.16, 7.21, 7.22, 7.23, 8, 9.5, 16, 23.1 & 24.1 of the distributors agreement to drive home the point that the relationship between the assessee is only principal and agent and not principal to principal. The ld. DR vehemently submitted - that assessee had held distribu…

Anchor Health & Beuty Care Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…um/2019 reiterated that these are in the nature of revenue expenditure and does not have any enduring benefit to the assessee company. The Ld.AR relied on the decision in the case of Excel Industries Ltd (2013 358 ITR 295 (SC), Taparia Tools Ltd vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC). 5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, contended that the impugned expenses incurred by the assessee company are of enduring benefit to the assessee company and that the cases relied upon by the Ld.AR are distinguishable to the present case in hand. The Ld.DR further stated that even otherwise, if the expenses are in the nature of revenue expend…

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…(Bombay). It is to be clarified that the matching concept theory referred by the CIT DR in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. (supra) has been reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC). We noted that this ground of appeal is covered in favour of the assessee vide the aforementioned orders of the 31 State Bank of India ITA No. 3033/2873/Mum/2019 Tribunal and Bombay High Court. The right to receive interest on securities arises on due date only, which falls after the accounting year and, accordingly, it cannot be taxed in t…

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…(Bombay). It is to be clarified that the matching concept theory referred by the CIT DR in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. (supra) has been reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC). We noted that this ground of appeal is covered in favour of the assessee vide the aforementioned orders of the 31 State Bank of India ITA No. 3033/2873/Mum/2019 Tribunal and Bombay High Court. The right to receive interest on securities arises on due date only, which falls after the accounting year and, accordingly, it cannot be taxed in t…

Suchetan Commercial & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

…ccounts are not determinative of taxable income under the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd reported in 82 ITR 363 (SC) and Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT reported in 372 ITR 605 (SC). 3.9. It is not in dispute that the MOUs entered into by the assessee for acquisitions of shops and flats were not registered. No stamp duty has been paid by the assessee at the time of its acquisition as the transactions had not been routed through the Stamp duty authorities. No evidence to prove that assessee had taken possession of the s…

Suchetan Commercial & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

…ccounts are not determinative of taxable income under the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd reported in 82 ITR 363 (SC) and Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT reported in 372 ITR 605 (SC). 3.9. It is not in dispute that the MOUs entered into by the assessee for acquisitions of shops and flats were not registered. No stamp duty has been paid by the assessee at the time of its acquisition as the transactions had not been routed through the Stamp duty authorities. No evidence to prove that assessee had taken possession of the s…

Interactive Avenues Pvt. Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us :-

…minative of taxable income of an assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 82 ITR 363 (SC) ; Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT reported in 372 ITR 605 (SC), among others. 3.7. We find that the ld. CIT(A) says that assessee is a dependent agent of Facebook and hence there is an obligation to deduct tax at source. We find that assessee is an agent of Indian advertisers and assessee is not an agent of Facebook Ireland. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept to this contention of the ld. CI…