TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 863/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 January 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. (Vice President), SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding the separate benchmarking of royalty payments, following its own prior decisions. Other grounds related to royalty computation were rendered academic. The ground concerning dividend distribution tax was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid substantial royalty to its associated enterprises for technical assistance. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed to benchmark royalty separately, arguing that entity-level TNMM was insufficient. The assessee contended that royalty was integral to other transactions and should be tested at the entity level.

What were the issues?

Whether royalty payments should be benchmarked separately from other international transactions when TNMM is applied at the entity level. Whether dividend distribution tax paid by a domestic company is subject to DTAA rates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115O,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., D.R
Hearing: 18.01.2024Pronounced: 22.01.2024

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A)-12, Bangalore dated 8.9.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are too general, which do not require any adjudication, which reads as follows:

1.

The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 (hereinafter referred to as CIT-(A)) to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant is bad in law.

2.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO and TPO in: a. Not appreciating that there is no amendment to the definition of

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 115O

All 69 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115O →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →