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

        <h1>ITAT Decision: Assessee's Appeal Allowed on Several Grounds</h1> <h3>Havells India Ltd. Versus DCIT (LTU), NBCC Plaza, New Delhi</h3> Havells India Ltd. Versus DCIT (LTU), NBCC Plaza, New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved1. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act.2. Disallowance of provision for sales incentive under 'Shahenshah Scheme'.3. Denial of claim of deduction u/s 80IC on interest income.4. Deduction of education cess and secondary and higher education cess.5. Denial of claim of deduction of interest expenses.6. Transfer Pricing Adjustments.Detailed Analysis1. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the ActThe AO disallowed Rs. 17,59,124/- paid to a foreign entity for certification services without TDS, treating it as 'fees for technical services.' The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The assessee argued that the services were rendered and utilized outside India, falling under the exemption u/s 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ITAT found that similar issues in earlier years (A.Ys. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09) were decided in favor of the assessee, holding that the payments were not taxable in India. Thus, the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, setting aside the AO's action.2. Disallowance of provision for sales incentive under 'Shahenshah Scheme'The AO disallowed Rs. 2,47,68,964/- provision for sales incentives, considering it contingent. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The assessee argued that the provision was based on a scientific method and legally enforceable. The ITAT noted that similar issues in earlier years (A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09) were decided in favor of the assessee, holding the provision to be on a scientific basis. Thus, the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, setting aside the AO's action.3. Denial of claim of deduction u/s 80IC on interest incomeThe AO denied the deduction on interest income earned from fixed deposits, considering it not derived from the business activity of the industrial undertaking. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The assessee argued that the interest income was inextricably linked to the main business activity. The ITAT found that similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years, holding that the interest income was eligible for deduction u/s 80IC. Thus, the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, directing the AO to grant the deduction.4. Deduction of education cess and secondary and higher education cessThe AO denied the claim of deduction for education cess and secondary and higher education cess of Rs. 54,75,037/-, citing the lack of a revised return. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The ITAT noted that similar issues in earlier years (A.Y. 2008-09) were decided in favor of the assessee, holding that the cess is allowable as a deduction. Thus, the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, setting aside the AO's action.5. Denial of claim of deduction of interest expensesThe AO denied the deduction of Rs. 1,57,80,709/- interest expenses capitalized for land at Greater Noida and Neemrana, considering it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the products manufactured at the new units were different, thus constituting an extension of business. The ITAT found no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings and upheld the denial of the deduction, dismissing the assessee’s appeal.6. Transfer Pricing AdjustmentsThe AO made an adjustment of Rs. 36,04,286/- for business support services provided to associated enterprises, using a different set of comparables than the assessee. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's decision. The ITAT excluded Piramal Enterprises Ltd. and WAPCOS Ltd. as comparables, noting functional dissimilarity and extraordinary events affecting their financials. Thus, the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, directing the exclusion of these companies as comparables.Conclusion- ITA No. 463/Del/2016: Partly allowed.- ITA No. 6194/Del/2015: Dismissed.Order PronouncementThe order was pronounced in the open court on 19.01.2021.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found