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>Tribunal rules on corporate guarantees, sponsorship fees & ESI/PF contributions</h1> <h3>NCC Limited. Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16 (1), Hyderabad.</h3> NCC Limited. Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16 (1), Hyderabad. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Arm's Length Price (ALP) adjustment for corporate guarantee.2. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B for ESI/PF contributions.3. Disallowance of sponsorship fees under Section 37(1).Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Arm's Length Price (ALP) Adjustment for Corporate Guarantee:The primary issue in the assessment year 2016-17's appeal (ITA No.595/Hyd/2020) was the correctness of the lower authorities' action in making an ALP adjustment of Rs. 29,68,60,000/- concerning corporate guarantee involving its overseas Associated Enterprises (AEs). The tribunal referred to its earlier decisions in similar cases (ITA Nos.1719/Hyd/2016, 435/Hyd/2018 & 2154/Hyd/2018) for preceding assessment years (AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15), where it upheld an identical adjustment. The tribunal cited the Madras High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. M/s. Redington (India) Limited, which clarified that corporate guarantees are considered international transactions under Section 92B of the Act with retrospective effect. The tribunal concluded that the lower authorities correctly treated the assessee's corporate guarantees as international transactions and upheld the adjustment. The assessee's arguments were declined as no legal or factual distinction was pointed out.2. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B for ESI/PF Contributions:The assessee's second substantive grievance in AY 2016-17 and the former substantive ground in AY 2017-18 challenged the correctness of the lower authorities' action in invoking Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B for disallowance of Rs. 14,14,41,324/- and Rs. 3,42,98,657/- respectively. The tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited the employees' contributions before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). The lower authorities' case was based on the premise that the employees' contribution is covered under Section 36(1)(va) rather than Section 43B. However, the tribunal observed that the legislature had amended Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B via the Finance Act, 2021, with the CBDT clarifying that these amendments apply prospectively from 01-04-2021. Therefore, the tribunal held that the impugned disallowance was not sustainable and deleted the ESI/PF disallowance in view of the latest legislative developments. The assessee succeeded on this issue in both appeals.3. Disallowance of Sponsorship Fees under Section 37(1):The third issue involved the disallowance of sponsorship fees of Rs. 17,30,400/- each in both assessment years. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the expenditure incurred towards sponsorship fees was in the nature of charity and not a business expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The assessee argued that the sponsorship was linked to its business activities in Uttar Pradesh, where it operated multiple projects and employed women. However, the tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grievance, as it failed to establish a direct nexus between the expenditure and its business activities. Citing the Third Member's decision in ITA No.2157/MAS/2011, M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, and the Supreme Court's decision in Sassoon J. David and Company (P) Ltd [118 ITR 26] (SC), the tribunal held that the expenditure claim under Section 37 must be wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the lower authorities.Conclusion:The assessee's appeals (ITA Nos.595/Hyd/2020 and 596/Hyd/2020) were partly allowed. The tribunal confirmed the ALP adjustment for corporate guarantees and the disallowance of sponsorship fees, while it deleted the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B for ESI/PF contributions. The order was pronounced in the open court on 27th September 2021.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found