← 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

Granules Czro Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 706/HYD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2023-24 Granules Czro Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Aakcc8412H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yv Bhanu Narayan Rao, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri YV Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

commenced manufacturing or production of article or thing on or before 31/03/2024. 10. Form 10ID of the Act provides that any new manufacturing domestic company can opt to pay tax at a concessional tax rate of 15% u/s 115BAB of the Act subject to certain conditions. To fulfil the conditions ... avail the benefit. Admittedly FAQs on Form 10ID is reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity. 1. What is Form 10-ID? New Manufacturing Domestic Companies can opt to pay tax at a concessional tax rate of 15% (plus applicable surcharge and cess) under Section 115BAB of the Income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1229/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

were disposed off by this common order. Algonomy Software Pvt. Ltd. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of providing software support and development services and ITeS. The assessee filed return of income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1226/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

were disposed off by this common order. Algonomy Software Pvt. Ltd. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of providing software support and development services and ITeS. The assessee filed return of income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore., Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1196/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

were disposed off by this common order. Algonomy Software Pvt. Ltd. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of providing software support and development services and ITeS. The assessee filed return of income

Energy-Mission Machineries (India) Private Limited, Ahemadabad vs. Circle 2(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)

than those mentioned under section 115BA and section 115BAB, the income-tax payable in respect of the total income of a person, being a domestic company, for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2020, shall, at the option ... Asst.Year –2022-23 - 8– From perusal of the provision of section 115BAA, which is in regard to tax rate applicable to certain category of domestic companies, it is noticed that undisputedly the assessee falls in the category of domestic companies for the benefit of section 115BAA as provided under

Mahalaxmi Asphalt Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1291/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 80I

rejected the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no dispute that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of Textile and eligible to avail the benefit to be taxed under Section 115BAA of the Act. The only objection of the Lower

Subhash E. Dhargave, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Funds, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10Section 10(35)

provided exemption in respect of ,,any income" of Venture Capital Fund set-up to raise funds for investment in ,,Venture Capital Undertaking" being a domestic company whose shares are not listed on a recognized stock exchange and which was engaged in business of service/production/manufacture of article/things [excluding activities/sectors ... raise funds for investment in a venture capital undertaking. Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, XX XX (c) venture capital undertaking means a domestic company (i) whose shares are not listed in a recognized stock exchange in India; (ii) which is engaged in the business for providing services, production

Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune. S.No.2/6, Near Baner Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aaacr8741G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Weighted Deduction Amounting To Rs.9,25,79,494/- U/S 35(2Ab) Of The Act. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Company Was Not Entitled To Claim Weighted Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Since Form No. 3Cla Was Filed By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Specified U/S 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 37(1)

passed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not correct. It was submitted by ld. AR that M/s. Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., is a Domestic Company, in which public are not substantially interested. The company has been established in September 1990 and since then it has been regularly assessed

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Brief facts of the case as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) are that the ap- pellant is a widely held domestic company engaged in the business of, inter alia, cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea, blending and sale of tea; manufacturing and exporting of instant tea, purchase and sale

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Brief facts of the case as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) are that the ap- pellant is a widely held domestic company engaged in the business of, inter alia, cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea, blending and sale of tea; manufacturing and exporting of instant tea, purchase and sale

Ace Urban Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. AO, Vijayawada

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

ITA 79/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). 3. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of development of smart cities. The assessee filed its Return of Income for the impugned Assessment Year on 17.10.2016 admitting total loss ... Page No. 10 I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/VIZ/2024 ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 26. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of development of smart cities filed its return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 on 28.11.2018 admitting loss

Ace Urban Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 284/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). 3. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of development of smart cities. The assessee filed its Return of Income for the impugned Assessment Year on 17.10.2016 admitting total loss ... Page No. 10 I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/VIZ/2024 ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 26. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of development of smart cities filed its return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 on 28.11.2018 admitting loss

Ace Urban Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. AO, NFAC

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

ITA 118/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2016-17) Ace Urban Developers Private Limited V. The Asst. Cit- Circle-2(1) Module No. A1, A2,A3 Vijayawada – 520002 Quadrant No. 4, 4Thfloor Andhra Pradesh Cyber Tower, Hitech City Madhapur B.O. Sheikpet, Hyderabad-500081, Telangana [Pan: Aanca4001H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sk Gupta,Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Sr.Ar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). 3. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of development of smart cities. The assessee filed its Return of Income for the impugned Assessment Year on 17.10.2016 admitting total loss ... Page No. 10 I.T.A.Nos.79, 118 & 284/VIZ/2024 ACE URBAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 26. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of development of smart cities filed its return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 on 28.11.2018 admitting loss

ACIT 23-1, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M
Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

from the same would not be eligible for exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act. (c) The Assessee had made investment in the domestic companies wherein the Assessee had holding more than the threshold specified in definition of „Venture Capital Fund‟ contained in Explanation (b) to Section 10(23FB ... provided exemption in respect of „any income‟ of Venture Capital Fund set-up to raise funds for investment in „Venture Capital Undertaking‟ being a domestic company whose shares are not listed on a recognized stock (AYs: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) exchange and which was engaged in business

ACIT-231, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 368/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M
Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

from the same would not be eligible for exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act. (c) The Assessee had made investment in the domestic companies wherein the Assessee had holding more than the threshold specified in definition of „Venture Capital Fund‟ contained in Explanation (b) to Section 10(23FB ... provided exemption in respect of „any income‟ of Venture Capital Fund set-up to raise funds for investment in „Venture Capital Undertaking‟ being a domestic company whose shares are not listed on a recognized stock (AYs: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) exchange and which was engaged in business

ACIT, Piramal Chambers vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

ITA 194/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19
Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115USection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

from the same would not be eligible for exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act. (c) The Assessee had made investment in the domestic companies wherein the Assessee had holding more than the threshold specified in definition of 'Venture Capital Fund' contained in Explanation (b) to Section 10(23FB ... provided exemption in respect of 'any income' of Venture Capital Fund set-up to raise funds for investment in 'Venture Capital Undertaking' being a domestic company whose shares are not listed on a recognized stock exchange and which was engaged in business of service/production/manufacture of article/things [excluding activities/sectors

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu (2), Mumbai

ITA 424/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 211

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SPECIAL BENCH’ MUMBAI BEFORE: JUSTICE (Retd.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3740/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 211

ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India & Central Bank of India आदेश / O R DER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M

Premcem Gums Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Appellant is dismissed

ITA 633/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: Shri HM Bhatt/Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)

modify or amend one or more of the Grounds of Appeal.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that Appellant is a domestic company that was engaged, at the relevant time, in the business of manufacturing and trading of gaur gum, cassia gum, gum ghatti etc. The Appellant filed return

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH