The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding Assessments for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 was challenged. The Appellant, having already lost similar questions in a related appeal, sought permission to raise them again. The high court held these issues did not arise a substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
905-itxa-1748-2014.doc
rrpillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1748 OF 2014
Director of Income Tax- I ..Appellant
Versus
M/s. Caylon Bank ..Respondent
Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant.
Mr. Madhur Agrawal i/b. Mr. Atul Jasani for Respondents.
CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA &
A. K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2017
P. C.
1/3
905-itxa-1748-2014.doc
failed to withhold tax u/s 195 of the Act on the interest payment made to HQ/Overseas branches ?
(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in working out the disallowance without any basis without appreciating the fact that working of disallowance ought to have been carried out in accordance with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?
(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in holding that no interest income earned on the loan by AE can be taken into account, instead of 25% of interest income adopted by TPO, for calculation of the ALP margin while benchmarking the services performed by the assessee for this AE.
1/3
905-itxa-1748-2014.doc
Income Tax Appeal No. 1781 of 2014 arising from the common impugned order for the reasons indicated in our order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No. 1781 of 2014. All the three questions proposed by the Revenue in this appeal do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.
1/3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable since tax was not withheld under Section 195.
Whether the Tribunal erred in working out disallowance without applying Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962.
Whether the Tribunal erred in excluding interest income earned by the assessee from the ALP margin benchmarking calculation.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Director of Income Tax- I
M/s. Caylon Bank
M. S. SANKLECHA
A. K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
