DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

35E of the IT Act. 54. The amendment was subsequently explained in more detail by the CBDT in Circular No. 779 dated 14-09-1999 under the head Business re- organization – Extensive amendments in relation to amalgamation Page No. | 15 ITA NO. 465 & 931/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2015-16) UltraTech Cement Limited demerger and slump sale. Relevant portion of the Circular

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

68 SOT 104 (Hyd). 10) Whether the Ld. LD CIT(A) is right in deciding that provision of Corporate Guarantee is not an international transaction when the assessee itself has clearly declared it as an international transaction in Form 3CEB and charged corporate guarantee fee and included it as part of its returned total income. 11) Whether

JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HARSHAD S. MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (C)- 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35E(1) or (2) to keep the interests of the department alive. If the officers’ view is the correct one, it will no doubt be finally upheld and the revenue will get the duty, though after some delay which such procedure would entail. It is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalatable