“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

Deloitte India Advisory Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1202/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Revised Return, Therefore The Appellant Ought To Have Been Allowed Entire Foreign Tax Relief Of Rs. 2,82,44,841. 1.3 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Rule 128 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 Does Not Provide For Disallowance Of Foreign Tax Relief In Case Of Filing Of Revised Form 67 Along With The Revised Return. 1.4 The Learned Nfac Ought To Have Granted The Balance Foreign Tax Relief Amounting To Rs. 1,34,86,569 Since The Appellant Has Filed The Revised Form 67 Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Revised Return Of Income.

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 90(2)

revised form 67 before the due date of filing of revised return of income. 3. The brief facts are that assessee is a domestic company rendering services to foreign clients. In some cases taxes are withheld by the foreign clients as per their domestic laws. The assessee also pays taxes

M/S. Topman International Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Topman International Ltd. Acit, Circle – 11(3)(1) J-303, 3Rd Floor, Tex Centre, Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Near Hdfc Bank, Off Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Chandiwali Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

cash deposit made during the demonitisation period. 2 M/s. Topman International Ltd. vs. ACIT 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of textiles. The assessee had filed its return of income dated 13.10.2017, declaring total income

Skf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Sailee V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 145A

Trib.) (SB)/[2023] 104 ITR(T) 1 (Mumbai - Trib.) (SB)[20-04-2023] held that tax treaty provisions do not get attracted when a domestic company pays dividend 22 distribution tax under Section 115O of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, First Additional Ground [Ground No.5 & 6] raised

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5431/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 80HSection 80I

where it is held that – 83. For the reasons give above, we hold that 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 sec.115-O of the Act, such additional income ... payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate mentioned in section 115-O of the Act and not at the rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income. Nevertheless, we are conscious

ACIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Essar Shipping Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

ITA 87/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rishav PatawariFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 115VSection 36(1)

another section 115BBDA, which deals with dividend received from domestic which deals with dividend received from domestic which deals with dividend received from domestic companies. In this section there is a specific restriction companies. In this section there is a specific restriction companies. In this section there is a specific ... declared, exceeding ten lakh rupees, by way of dividends declared, exceeding ten lakh rupees, by way of dividends declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company or companies distributed or paid by a domestic company or companies distributed or paid by a domestic company or companies (on or before

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mirae Asset Global Investments (I) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1156/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Circle 14(1)(1) Vs. M/S Mirae Asset Global Room No. 432, 4 Th Floor, Investment Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Unit No. 606, 6 Th Floor, M.K. Road, Windsor, Off Cst Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Kalina, Santacruz (East) Mumbai – 400 098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecm8387K Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Mahita Nair Respondent By : Tanzil Padvekar Date Of Hearing 25.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 09.02.2023 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Scheme Expenses Exceeding The Limit Specified In Sebi Regulation, Whereas The Expenses Not Being The Liability Of The Assessee, Was Rightly Disallowed Under Income Tax Provisions. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Cit(A) On The Above Grounds Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend, Or Alter Any Grounds Or Add A New Ground, Which May Be Necessary.”

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: Tanzil Padvekar

Section 143(3)

Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.nil was filed on 20.11.2015. The assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of Asset Management and Investment Advisory Services. The assessing officer passed the order u/s 143(3) on 12.12.2017 by making the addition

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 899/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd. 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee company being a domestic company filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.54,15,610/- each for A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018- 19. On the basis

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 898/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 897/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

I.T.A. No.40/Viz/2023, A.Y.2019-20 SIONC Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, Visakhapatnam 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company, in the business of manufacturing of bulk drugs had filed it’s return of income for the A.Y.2019-20 on 22.10.2019, declaring an income of Rs.13

ACIT Circle- 3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Videocon Realty & Infrastructures Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7558/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

taking ITA No. 7558/Mum/2019 as the lead case for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of real-estate development and had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 dated 17.10.2016 declaring loss

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Videocon Realty & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7401/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R

Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

relevant DTAA with reference to dividend income. However, the Bench also took note of the sovereign's prerogative to extend the Treaty protection to domestic company paying DDT. Citing the specific provisions in the Protocol of the DTAA between India and Hungary, the Bench concluded that India-Hungary DTAA ... partners have extended the Treaty protection to DDT by specifically providing for it in the Protocol to DTAA and hence in such cases the domestic company paying dividend can claim benefit of beneficial rate of tax as per the DTAA. 19. Considering the above, the Appellant requests Your Honour

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 467/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R

Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2009/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of the Act, in addition to the income chargeable to tax in case of a domestic company, there shall be tax on any amount declared, distributed or paid by such company by way of dividend or interim dividend. Sub-section ... thereof further provides that the principal officer of the domestic company and the company shall be liable to pay tax on distributed profits to the credit of the Central Government within fourteen days from the date of declaration of any dividend or distribution or payment of any dividend whichever

J.B.Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

M/S Tricon Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2985/MUM/2022[2020-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2020-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S Tricon Global Services Dy. Cit, Cpc Private Limited, Bengaluru-560100 701, Dlh Park, S.V. Road, Off Vs. Mtnl, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aabco 0321 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 40Section 90(2)

amount declared, distributed or paid by a domestic amount declared, distributed or paid by a domestic amount declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company by way of dividends shall be charged to company by way of dividends shall be charged to company by way of dividends shall be charged ... additional income tax @ 15%. The sub-section 115 section 115-0(1A) even provides even provides for levy of tax on the domestic company if for levy of tax on the domestic company if any dividend is received from the foreign subsidiary. The any dividend is received from the foreign

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA