← 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

Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 217/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 80G

obstante" clause of section 115BBD. d. The argument of taking help from section 115BBDA, which provides taxability of dividend received from domestic companies is irrelevant, because every section is independent of each other in Chapter XII which deals with "Determination of Taxes in Certain Special Cases". e. The assessee stated ... accordance with section 71 of the Act. 39. On the contrary, there is another section 115BBDA, which deals with dividend received from domestic companies. In this section there is a specific restriction not only for allowance of expenditure deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance but also restriction

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3022/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

Resolution Panel-II, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 28.12.2015. 2. The Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of running hotels and resorts. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 30.11.2011 declaring

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

Resolution Panel-II, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 28.12.2015. 2. The Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of running hotels and resorts. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 30.11.2011 declaring

Bholanath Precision Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 1997/MUM/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nihar A. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250

under section 115BAA of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are: The Assessee is a domestic company. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 15/01/2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 20,71,870. The Assessing Officer ... Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, with effect from 01/04/2020, for the purpose of granting benefit of reduced corporate tax rate for the domestic companies. In order to avail the benefit, such companies will have to exercise the option in the prescribed manner on or before the due date specified under

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

save and except for clarification that charge of tax in respect of a foreign company at a rate higher than the rate at which domestic company is chargeable, shall not be regarded as less favourable charge or levy in respect of such foreign company. Just in case there were

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

save and except for clarification that charge of tax in respect of a foreign company at a rate higher than the rate at which domestic company is chargeable, shall not be regarded as less favourable charge or levy in respect of such foreign company. Just in case there were

Deputy CIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri
Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 28Section 43Section 92Section 92F

accordance with section 71 of the Act. 39. On the contrary, there is another section 115BBDA, which deals with dividend received from domestic companies. In this section there is a specific restriction not only for allowance of expenditure deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance but also restriction ... specified assessee) resident in India, includes any income in aggregate exceeding ten lakh rupees, by way of dividends declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company or companies (on or before the 31st day of March 2020), the income tax payable shall be the aggregate of a) the amount

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

appeals are common, we consider the facts of the case for the A.Y. 2016-17 as follows:- 3.1 The Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 under section

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

appeals are common, we consider the facts of the case for the A.Y. 2016-17 as follows:- 3.1 The Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 under section

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

appeals are common, we consider the facts of the case for the A.Y. 2016-17 as follows:- 3.1 The Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 under section

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

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 etc, as is applicable on the domestic companies. This plea, ITA Nos. 2227 & 2229/Mum/2017and 7345 & 7347/Mum/2018 CO Nos.: 17 & 18/Mum/ 2021; Assessment years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Page 3 of 33 however, was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

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 etc, as is applicable on the domestic companies. This plea, ITA Nos. 2227 & 2229/Mum/2017and 7345 & 7347/Mum/2018 CO Nos.: 17 & 18/Mum/ 2021; Assessment years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Page 3 of 33 however, was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that

Tata Aia Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax, Rane-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 44

with Rule 2 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and consequently, in applying the rate of tax of 30% (which is applicable to a domestic company) as against the tax rate of 12.5% (which is applicable to a company engaged in life insurance business as per section

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 92C

instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee, a domestic company, is primarily engaged in the business of civil construction, real estate and trading of construction related services. The assessee had electronically filed its original return

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

Resolution Panel-II, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 29.12.2014. 2. The Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of running hotels and resorts. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 07.10.2010 declaring

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

Resolution Panel-II, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 29.12.2014. 2. The Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of running hotels and resorts. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 07.10.2010 declaring

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

assessee's appeal." 28.In the case of Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, 87 TTJ 1098 (Hyd), the assessee was a domestic company in which public are not substantially interested. The assessee derived income from two cinema theatres and a shopping complex. The assessee-company was managed

Eaton Power Quality Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

ground that same were not at arm’s length price. The facts with regard to impugned dispute are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of trading of UPS and Direct Current power system etc. and also provides maintenance services for these items in India

DCIT, Pondicherry vs. Eaton Power Quality P. Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1689/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

ground that same were not at arm’s length price. The facts with regard to impugned dispute are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of trading of UPS and Direct Current power system etc. and also provides maintenance services for these items in India

DCIT, Corporate Circle -4(1), Chennai vs. L&T Access Distribution Services Limited, Chennai

ITA 362/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Dharod, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 350Section 35D

that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of financing. During the scrutiny proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed from the profit & loss account that the assessee company