“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 339/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

Tribunal in the case of Total Oil India Private Limited (supra), which reads as under:- “Where dividend is declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder(s), which attracts additional income- tax (tax on distributed profits) referred to in section 115-O of the Income ... short ‘the Act’), whether such additional income- tax payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate mentioned in section 115-O of the Act or the rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) with reference to such dividend income”. 19. Thereafter in the decision

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 338/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Radha Madhav Investments Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3341/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

response to the aforesaid notices. During the assessment proceedings, assessing officer noticed that the assessee company earned dividend income from shares held in domestic company amounting to Rs. 5,26,095/– and claimed the same as exempt from tax 3 Radha Madhav Investments Pvt. Ltd. u/s.10

Cma Cgm Agencies (India) Private Limited, Elphinstone Road West, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1456/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1455 & 1456/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vidur Munjal &

Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 28Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

year 2015-16 are stated herein. ITA No.1455/PUN/2023 - A.Y. 2015-16 : 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a domestic company inter alia engaged in the business of shipping agents. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2015-16 was filed on 28.11.2015 declaring total

Cma Cgm Agencies (India) Private Limited, Elphinstone Road West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1455/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1455 & 1456/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vidur Munjal &

Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 28Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5848/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaaci1747H Vs. The Acit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5935/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aaaci1747H Respondent) Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken Shah, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai Dated 27.06.2017 For

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 801A

Total Oil India (P.) Ltd ({2023] 149 taxmann.com 332 (Mumbai - Trib.) (SB)) has held that DTAA does not get triggered at all when a domestic company pays DDT under section 115-O. 35 ITA No. 5848 & 5935/Mum/2017 Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited Respectfully following these decisions we dismiss these additional grounds

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. Commisioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 58, Mumbai

ITA 693/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 250

also 25(2), the rate of taxation of income of the assessee company cannot be more than the rate applicable for the domestic companies engaged in the same or similar activities. The Assessing Officer was thus urged that instead of levy of tax @ 40% plus surcharge etc, the assessee company ... should be levied tax @ 30% plus surcharge Page 3 ITA No. 696/Mum/2024 AY 2016-17 Shinhan Bank etc, as is applicable on the domestic companies. This plea, however, was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that in the light of Explanation I to Section 90, the provisions

Ravechi Traders India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Assessment Unit

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

ITA 968/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Ravechi Traders India Private Limited Nfac Gala No.1, Survey No.2, Assessment Unit, It Dept., Universal Building, Golani Naka Waliv, Vs. Delhi Vasai (E), Vasai, Mumbai-401 208

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

therefore, deem it fit to condone the delay. Delay condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in wholesale business and had filed its return of income on 31.01.2022, declaring total income of Rs.1,43,670/- and claiming refund of Rs.14

Aprameya Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 1(1)(1), Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2022-23 Aprameya Engineering Limited The Income Tax Officer 908, 9Th Floor, Vs Ward-1(1)(1) Venus Atlantis Ahmedabad Corporate Park Anandnagar, Prahlad Nagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Aawca 3138 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Add/Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5 Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred As “The Cit(A)”), Dated 23-02-2024, Which Dismissed The Assessee'S Appeal Against The Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”), Passed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. The Primary Issue Is The Rejection Of The Assessee'S Claim For Taxation At A Lower Rate Under Section Aprameya Engineering Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

erred in not allowing to tax income at a rate of 25% even though the appellant satisfies the conditions of being a domestic company having a turnover less than 400 crores. Hence, the same needs to be held now. 3. The order passed ... audit report was filed on 30-09-2022 i.e. before the due date of filing the same. c. Considering the genuine hardship to the domestic companies in exercising the option u/s 115AA, the CBDT, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act had issued circulars extending

Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2098/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 144Section 14ASection 263

Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Muzaffarnagar, for the assessment year 2013-14. AY: 2013-14 2. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a domestic company stated to be engaged in the business of civil contract works. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income

Himalaya Distilleries Ltd., Sikkim vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 757 & 758/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Himalaya Distilleries Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Majitar Vs Gangtok Rangpo – 737136 [East Sikkim] [Pan : Aacch6217P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/R Revenue By : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Evenly Dt. 29/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. As The Issues Raised In Both These Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Indicate That Apart From The Grounds Raised On Merit, A Common Legal Ground Has Been Raised Challenging The Validity Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings On Account Of Wrong Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act & That The Re-

For Appellant: Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 250

supra), we find that prior to Companies Act, 2013, the Indian Company as referred u/s 2(22A) of the Act is defined as a domestic company means an Indian company and further Indian company has been defined u/s 2(22) of the Companies Act, which means a company formed ... laws. Therefore, it was only after enactment of Companies Act, 2013, that the Registration of Companies (Sikkim) Act, 1961, fell under the category of domestic companies and all the provisions of Income tax Act applicable to Indian domestic companies started applying thereon. 7 I.T.A. No. 757 & 758/Kol/2023 Assessment Year

Himalaya Distilleries Ltd., Sikim vs. ITO, WD-3(1), Gangtok, Sikim

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Somanth Ghosh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 250

Firestone Industrial Products Inc, United States vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned addition is deleted

ITA 1066/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), assessee had taken a plea that the company is a separate entity from its share holders/members and, with transfer of shares, assets of the company are not transferred, and the same continues to be held by the company. It was also explained that since the assessee did not have PAN at the time of sale of shares, buyer M/s Sundaram Industries Pvt. Ltd. deducted @20% plus surcharge and cess on such Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee, which is reflected in From 26AS an

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. SupriyaFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 112(1)Section 112(1)(c)Section 112(1)(ii)

term capital gain on sale of unlisted equity shares in India. Assessee had acquired 51% shares of Firestone TVS Pvt. Ltd. which is a domestic company in two tranches i.e. 7.3.2008 and 30.7.2008 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,96,31,685/- and during the year these shares were

Synergy Health Sciences Private Limited, Thane vs. CIT (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 54/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sushant SantFor Respondent: ShriDinesh A Chourasia – SR AR

Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

than 400 crores. The said demand is not acceptable to the appellant.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company and professionally managed pharmaceuticals, intermediates and chemical services and also engaged in merchant exports, trading, providing technical support, indenting, strategic sourcing and facilitating contract

Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-28, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 458/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mr. S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 458 /Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Vs. Acit Ltd., Dpt, 801, Dlf Central Circle – 28 Prime Tower, Plot No.F- New Delhi 79 & 80, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaecm 5383 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & I.T.A. No. 827/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dcit Vs. Millenium Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle -28 164, M.G. Road, Budge, Delhi West Bengal – 700 137 Pan: Aaecm 5383 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. D.R

Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 250(6)

Central Circle – 28, New Delhi under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The appellant, a domestic company filed its original return of income under Section 139 of the Act on 29.11.2016 declaring income at Rs.95,54,490/-. The same was processed

The Dy. CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Invida India Pvt.Ltd. ( Now Known As Menarini India Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1316/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

further held that the approval given by RBI would not suffice as CUP rate as RBI does not fix the rate at which a domestic company can pay royalty. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that A.Y. 2010-11 Page 4 of 13 determination of ALP for the royalty payment made

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

with the Appellant and relying on past trends for the movement in the provision for CLP. 3.1 Brief facts are that the assessee, a domestic company, is in the business of manufacturing, trading and servicing of watches, jewellery and clocks. The AO on verification of profit & loss account and balance

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 506/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)