Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, excluding corporate guarantees as international transactions

        Britannia Industries Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-7 (1), Kolkata

        Britannia Industries Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-7 (1), Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:

        1. Transfer pricing adjustment related to corporate guarantee fees.
        2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
        3. Adjustment in book profit under Section 115JB.
        4. Treatment of government subsidy as capital or revenue receipt.
        5. Treatment of undisclosed receipt based on ITS data of AIR.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment Related to Corporate Guarantee Fees:

        The assessee contested the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 2,18,77,327/- related to corporate guarantee fees, arguing that corporate guarantees did not constitute 'international transactions' under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant claimed that extending corporate guarantees was a shareholder activity, not warranting any fee, and that bank guarantees were not comparable to corporate guarantees. The Tribunal observed that numerous judicial pronouncements, including the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Micro Ink Limited vs. ACIT, had held that corporate guarantees do not constitute international transactions. The Tribunal concluded that corporate guarantees given by the appellant to its AE were for pure business considerations and were in the nature of an owner-shareholder activity, hence no transfer pricing adjustment was warranted. The Tribunal deleted the upward adjustment of Rs. 2,18,77,327/-.

        2. Disallowance Under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D:

        The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 58,27,584/- made by the Assessing Officer under Rule 8D(2)(iii), arguing that there was no proximate cause between the expenditure incurred and the earning of tax-free income. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance of administrative expenses should be governed by Rule 8D(2)(iii) and should consider only dividend-bearing securities. Respecting the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of REI Agro Ltd., the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance by taking into account only dividend-bearing securities. The grounds were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

        3. Adjustment in Book Profit Under Section 115JB:

        The assessee contested the increase in book profit by Rs. 58,27,584/- under Section 115JB due to disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 115JB are explicit and do not include adjustments for disallowance under Section 14A. Referring to the Tribunal’s discussion in ACIT vs. Vineet Investment Ltd., the Tribunal held that such an upward revision is not permitted and deleted the addition of Rs. 58,27,584/-.

        4. Treatment of Government Subsidy as Capital or Revenue Receipt:

        The assessee received a subsidy of Rs. 17,48,00,000/- from the Governments of Bihar and Orissa for setting up new industries, which it claimed as a capital receipt. The Assessing Officer treated it as revenue income. The Tribunal, considering the nature and purpose of the subsidy, held that it was for setting up new projects and thus should be treated as a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., which emphasized the 'purpose test' to determine the nature of the subsidy. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to treat the subsidy as a capital receipt.

        5. Treatment of Undisclosed Receipt Based on ITS Data of AIR:

        The assessee contested the treatment of Rs. 6,14,238/- as an undisclosed receipt based on ITS data of AIR. The Tribunal directed the assessee to file a reconciliation statement of AIR data versus the data in its books and instructed the Assessing Officer to examine this reconciliation and adjudicate the issue in accordance with the law. This ground was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

        Conclusion:

        The appeal was partly allowed, with significant deletions and adjustments made in favor of the assessee based on judicial precedents and detailed analysis of the issues involved. The Tribunal's order emphasized adherence to established legal principles and judicial pronouncements in resolving the disputes.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found