DY.CIT C C 5(2) CENTRAL RG-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. USV PRIVATE LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2356/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 April 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that TNMM was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions, restoring the matter to the TPO for fresh adjudication. It also allowed weighted deduction for clinical trials and foreign patent filing expenses, but disallowed education cess.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustments and disallowance of patient education expenses. The assessee, a healthcare company, had made international transactions involving the sale of tablets to its Associated Enterprises.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the appropriateness of the transfer pricing method and the allowability of expenses for patient education programs and patent filings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA,Section 37(1),Section 35(2AB),Section 40(a)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, Shri Pratik Poddar
Hearing: 09/02/2024Pronounced: 01/04/2024

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021
I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter “Ld. CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 31.08.2020 and order dated 10.03.2021 for the assessment year 2012-13 and AY. 2013-14 respectively. Since issues in both the years were the same, both these appeals were heard together. Both the parties also agreed that there is no change of facts or position in law acro

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →