DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Construction Ltd, Mumbai
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed
ITA 2432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, Aayakarbhavan, 4Th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani / Ms. Shweta Mahadik, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)
…thout considering that the transfer Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. basic nature of transaction will not undergo it change. Therefore, the decision of the ld.CIT(A) is contrary to the law explained by the coordinate bench decision in the case Tally solutions 160 ITD 465 (Bangalore Tribunal), which was considered jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Vodafone 368 ITR 1 (Bombay). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deciding that the Corporate guarantee to EXIM Bank on behalf of HCC Mauritius Enterprises Limited, was not an international transact…
