ACIT v. Kobelco Construction Equipment India Ltd.

186 TTJ 790Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19712 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2020.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Kobelco Construction Equipment India Ltd.

ELCOME TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-RANGE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2051/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Day () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Elcome Technologies Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Vs. Tax-Range 15(1)(1), Mumbai. Elcome House, A-06, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122002 Pan No. Aaace7023Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dhanesh Bafna /Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anand Mohan/Mr. Michael Jerald, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2020

For Appellant: Mr. Dhanesh Bafna /Mr. Arpit Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan/Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DAY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Elcome Technologies Private Deputy Commissioner of Income Limited, Vs. Tax-Range 15(1)(1), Mumbai. Elcome House, A-06, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122002 PAN No. AAACE7023Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dhanesh Bafna /Mr. Arpit Agrawal, AR Revenue by : Mr. Anand Mohan/Mr. Michael Jerald, DR Last Date of Hearing : 23/06/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 09/09/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. Th…

FUJITSU INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 9(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 7088/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C

…s profit margin earned on such transaction becomes the determinative factor to analyse the gross compensation after the cost of sales. Thus, we hold that under the facts of the present case, RPM should be held as MAM.” 21. Construction Equipment India Ltd. – 186 TTJ 790 also decided the identical issue by relying upon Mattel Toys (I.)(P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) and L’oreal India P. Ltd. - (2012) 24 taxmann.com 192, in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “13. The aforesaid decision clearly clinches the issue that under the RPM, the focus is more on same or similar nature of properties or…

FUJITSU INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 1982/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C

…s profit margin earned on such transaction becomes the determinative factor to analyse the gross compensation after the cost of sales. Thus, we hold that under the facts of the present case, RPM should be held as MAM.” 21. Construction Equipment India Ltd. – 186 TTJ 790 also decided the identical issue by relying upon Mattel Toys (I.)(P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) and L’oreal India P. Ltd. - (2012) 24 taxmann.com 192, in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “13. The aforesaid decision clearly clinches the issue that under the RPM, the focus is more on same or similar nature of properties or…

FUJITSU INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1674/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C

…s profit margin earned on such transaction becomes the determinative factor to analyse the gross compensation after the cost of sales. Thus, we hold that under the facts of the present case, RPM should be held as MAM.” 21. Construction Equipment India Ltd. – 186 TTJ 790 also decided the identical issue by relying upon Mattel Toys (I.)(P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) and L’oreal India P. Ltd. - (2012) 24 taxmann.com 192, in favour of the assessee by returning following findings :- “13. The aforesaid decision clearly clinches the issue that under the RPM, the focus is more on same or similar nature of properties or…

ACIT v. Kobelco Construction Equipment India Ltd. (186 TTJ 790) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax