MEGGER INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7514/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 July 2021AY 2012-132 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Departmental Representative had no objection. The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the Assessing Officer's order, which confirmed the arm's length price for intra-group services at Rs. NIL, against the amount determined by the appellant. The appellant argued that the DRP erred in confirming no tangible benefit was derived from these services.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the arm's length price determination for intra-group services and whether the appellant derived tangible benefits from them.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody
For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Hearing: 01.07.2021

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 08.03.2016 for assessment year 2012-13 passed pursuant to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-3, Mumbai dated 7/11/2016.

2.

The grounds of appeal read as under : 1) The Learned Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax - (HQ), DRP-3, WZ, Mumbai has erred in facts and in law in confirming the Assessing Officer's proposing the arm's length price for international transaction in respect of availing of intra-group services, i.e. Administrative and Managerial Services by the Appellant from its Associated Enterprises (AE) at Rs. NIL as against the sum of Rs. 71,67,0377- determined by the Appellant and thereby proposing an adjustment of Rs. 71,67,0377-.

2) The Learned Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax - (HQ), DRP-3, WZ, Mumbai has erred in confirming that no tangible or direct benefit was derived by the Appellant from receipt of the intra-group services and that the Appellant failed to furnish adequate evidences to demonstrate that the services were actually rendered by the AE, not appreciating the details, explanations and evidences submitted by the Appellant.

3.

At the outset, in this case Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that he shall be withdrawing the appeal. Ld. Departmental Representative did not have any objection to this proposition.

4.

Upon careful consideration, we have granted permission to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

5.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Pronounced in the open court on 05.07.2021

More judgments on Section 144C(1)

All 423 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →