← All Phrases

“domestic company”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(22A) / ITR-6540 judgments

The decision most relied on for domestic company is CIT v. ITC Ltd. (236 Taxmann 612), cited in 108 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on domestic company

CIT v. ITC Ltd.
236 Taxmann 612 · 2016 · High Court
108
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 80IA, specifically for inter-unit transfer of power, the benefit cannot be claimed based on rates chargeable by distribution licensees to consumers. The deduction must be computed based on the rate fixed by the Tariff Regulation Commission for sale by electricity generating companies.

Sky High Appeal XLIII Leasing Company Ltd. v. ACIT
177 Taxmann.com 579 · ITAT
85
citing judgments

The Multilateral Instrument (MLI) does not become legally enforceable under domestic law without a specific notification under section 90(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for each affected Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat Alkalies Chemicals Limited
395 ITR 247 · 2017 · High Court
49
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 80IA is allowable for captive power generation. The price for calculating this deduction is the rate at which the electricity board supplies power to its consumers, rather than the rate at which power generating companies supply to the electricity board.

Union of India v. Tata Tea Co Ltd.
398 ITR 260 · 2017 · Supreme Court
38
citing judgments

Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is a tax on the profits of the domestic company, not on the shareholder. The Supreme Court's decision in Tata Tea Co. Ltd. did not address the precise nature of DDT as a tax on the company versus the shareholder.

Skoda Auto India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, Aurangabad
30 SOT 319 · 2009 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

The Tribunal may allow adjustments for differences between the tested party and comparable companies to eliminate material differences, provided accurate and credible evidence is furnished.

SwissRe Global Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
116 Taxmann.com 716 · 2020 · Reported
13
citing judgments

Working capital adjustment is an accepted adjustment provided for better comparability in transfer pricing. The Tribunal has held that working capital adjustment is necessary for better comparability.

ITO v. Strides Arcolab Ltd.
24 Taxmann.com 89 · 2012 · ITAT
13
citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A is applicable to investments made in shares of domestic companies but not foreign companies.

Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Bank Ltd. v. CIT
108 Taxmann.com 242 · 2019 · High Court
12
citing judgments

A non-domestic company's Permanent Establishment (PE) in India cannot be taxed at a rate higher than that applicable to a domestic company carrying out the same activities, even considering retrospective amendments to tax treaties.

Judgments citing domestic company

Power and Instrumentation (Gujarat) Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Circle 3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1212/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1212/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Power & Instrumentation The Acit बनाम/ (Gujarat) Ltd. Circle-3(3)(1) V/S. 12, Sunshin Industrial Estate Ahmedabad – 390 014 Rakhial, Ahmedabad – 380 023 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccp 4292 Q (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07/05/2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Upholding The Order Of Rectification Dated 23-11-2021 Under Section 154 Of The Act For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ao"].

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

under the Finance Act, 2017. The CIT(A) concluded that the Finance Act, 2017, provides a concessional tax rate of 25% for domestic companies if their turnover or gross receipts for Financial Year (FY) 2015-16 do not exceed Rs.50 Cr. The CIT(A) determined the turnover ... included in the turnover for income tax purposes. 7.6. The concessional tax rate of 25% was introduced under the Finance Act, 2017, applicable to domestic companies for the Financial Year (FY) 2017-18 (Assessment Year 2018-19). The relevant provision states that a domestic company is eligible for the concessional

Hydraguard International Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward.2(3), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2103/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2103/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Hydraguard International Pvt. Ltd. Ito #86, Polyhose Towers, 8Th Floor, बनाम/ Corporate Ward-2(3) Western Ring, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-7219-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.M. Khaja Muyeenuddeen (Ca)– Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan(Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In This Appeal, The Assessee Seeks Application Of Correct Rate Of Tax. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 07-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 18-12-2021. 2. Upon Perusal Of Impugned Order, It Could Be Seen That In Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, The Assessee Opted For Taxation In Terms Of Sec.115Baa @22%. The Assessee Declared Income

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Khaja Muyeenuddeen (CA)– Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan(Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)

less than 400 Crores. The CPC should have allowed the benefit of reduced rates of tax @25% as applicable to such domestic companies. The Ld. CIT(A) held that since the assessee did not file mandatory Form No.10-IC, the concessional rate was rightly denied to the assessee. On the alternative ... made by the assessee is not u/s 115BA but the assessee merely seek application of correct general rate of tax as applicable to all domestic companies whose turnover in previous year (PY) 2016-17 was less than Rs.250 Crores. For the same, Ld. AR has drawn our attention

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 585/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.585/Mum/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cma Cgm Agencies Acit, Circle-6(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. India Private Limited, 407, City Tower, Boat Club Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Prakash L. Pathade Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing The Ao To Delete The Addition Of Rs.9,06,53,035/- Made By Ao On Account Of Expenditure For It Service Charges U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act, 1961 Treating Such Expense Incurred By The Assessee Company As Fees For Technical Services/Royalty?

For Appellant: Mahenov ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a domestic company and is engaged in the business of shipping agents. The original return of income was filed on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.8