ACIT , SPL. RANGE-9, NEW DELHI vs. TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the full facts regarding the nature of payments for IT services and product design were not on record. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s Timex Group India Ltd., filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which partly upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) decision on transfer pricing adjustments and disallowance for TDS default. The Revenue also filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s findings.
What were the issues?
The key issues involved transfer pricing adjustments related to advertisement, marketing, and sales promotion (AMP) expenses and the disallowance of payments made to associated enterprises for IT and product design services due to alleged TDS default.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show listHide 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.
- GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT663 citing10 SCC 29 · 2010 · Read judgment
- ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai89 citing3 SCC 321 · 2022
- EY Global Services Ltd. v. ACIT72 citing441 ITR 54 · 2022 · HC
- (International Taxation) v. Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.34 citing459 ITR 5 · 2023 · HC
- DIT (International Taxation) v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS12 citing5 SCC 651 · 2017
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, These are cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue, against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi, dated 28.06.2019 arising from the Assessment Order dated 07.02.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') rel
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs Addi. CIT Spl.Range-9, New DelhiDelhi26 Sept 2025Remanded
Also relies on DIT (International Taxation) v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal found that the facts regarding the exact nature of payments for IT and product design services were not sufficiently on record. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudi...
- Gsma Ltd, Usa vs ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 1(3)(1), New DelhiDelhi4 Nov 2025Allowed
The Tribunal held that the administration fee was not royalty, as decided in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Regarding subscription fees, the Tribunal ruled that they were not royalty as the assesse...
- Invesco Holding Company (Us) Inc., Usa vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Delhi31 Oct 2025Allowed
Also relies on DIT (International Taxation) v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement was on a cost-to-cost basis without any profit element and that the services provided did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian AEs, as per the DTAA. Th...
- Invesco Holding Company (Us) Inc., Usa vs ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(1), New DelhiDelhi23 Jul 2024Allowed
Also relies on DIT (International Taxation) v. A.P. Moller Maersk AS and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the reimbursements were on a cost-to-cost basis without any profit element, and therefore, not taxable as income. It was also noted that the services did not 'make available' technical knowledge to...
- ITO 3(3)2, Mumbai vs Shamrock Pharmachemi P.Ltd, MumbaiMumbai30 May 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without allowing the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating principles of natural justice and Rule 46A(3). The issue regarding Section 68 was r...
More judgments on Section 92CA
- Bellsonica Auto Component India Private… vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), GurgaonITA 1041/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Smartstream Technologies India Private… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2220/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Airmeet Networks Private Limited, Bengaluru vs Assessing Officer, BengaluruITA 1487/BANG/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
