| Case ID |
375bb81b-3378-463e-b74a-a1757a937ade |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 29, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
Aug 29, 2005 |
| Decision |
The appeal by the revenue was dismissed by the Bombay High Court. The court upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that the payment made by the assessee to its subsidiary for iron ore was justified based on a contractual agreement ensuring a consistent quality and quantity of supply. The court noted that both the assessee and the subsidiary were taxed at the same rate, thus negating any possibility of tax evasion. The provisions of section 40A(2) were not applicable as the subsidiary did not qualify as a related person under the law. The court emphasized the importance of consistent supply in export business and ruled that slightly higher contractual rates do not equate to unreasonable expenditure. |
| Summary |
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. V.S. Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd., the Bombay High Court addressed the applicability of section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act regarding business disallowance for excessive payments. The court found that the payments made by the assessee to its subsidiary for iron ore, although higher than market rates, were justified due to a contractual agreement ensuring supply consistency. The court ruled that both entities were taxed at the same rate, thus ruling out tax evasion and reinforcing the legitimate business nature of the transactions. This case highlights the significance of contractual agreements in mitigating risks associated with supply quality and quantity in the export sector. It also clarifies the interpretation of 'related persons' in the context of tax regulations, emphasizing that subsidiaries do not automatically qualify as related parties under section 40A(2). The decision reinforces the necessity for clear contractual terms in business dealings, particularly in industries where supply consistency is paramount. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Dempo Mining Corporation (P.) Ltd.
|
| Judges |
D.G. Karnik,
F.M. Reis
|
| Lawyers |
Ms. Asha Dessai,
Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji Goa
|
| Respondents |
V.S. Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd.
|
| Citations |
2011 SLD 2756 = (2011) 336 ITR 209
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bom.),
CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds [2003] 261 ITR 258/ 128 Taxman 759 (Bom.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
40A(2)
|