Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10B(3), Section 10B(2)(a), Section 133(6), Section 10B(1), Section 10B(2), Section 10B(4).

Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd.?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd. (133 ITD 543), spanning 2015 to 2025.

133 ITD 543Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#4105 most cited

What is Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd. authority for?

The revenue authorities cannot exclude comparable companies from the final list if the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had not rejected them, even if the revenue representative believes they do not pass the comparability test.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd. · 133 ITD 543 · 16 Taxmann.com 47 · ITAT · transfer pricing · comparability · comparable companies · TPO · revenue representative · exclusion of comparables · Section 92C

Also reported as

16 Taxmann.com 47

Sections most often in play

Section 10B(3)Section 10B(2)(a)Section 133(6)Section 10B(1)Section 10B(2)Section 10B(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

captive service provider tested party specified domestic transaction transactional net margin method most appropriate method comparable companies tnmm associated enterprise associated enterprises transfer pricing adjustment international transaction section 92c

Judgments citing Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd.

Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4783/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 4783/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 FedEx Express Vs. ACIT 1(3)(1), Transportation and Mumbai Supply Chain Services Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Private Limited Mumbai-400020 Boomerang, Unit No.801, 8th Floor, Wings A & B1 Chandivali Farm Road Andheri East, Mumbai-400072 PAN:AABCF6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sriram Seshadri/Ms.Amulya K. Respondent by Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fis Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and both Cos are allowed as above

ITA 2387/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRISUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5939/Del./2012, A.Y. 2007-08 ITA No.2387/Del./2014, A.Y. 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner FIS Global Business Solution India of Income Tax, (P) Ltd.[formerly known as E-Funds Circle 11(1), Vs. International India (P) Ltd.] Room No. 312, S-405 (LGF), Greater Kailash, Part-II C.R.Building, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi PAN: AAACH2815H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 03/Del/2013 (Arising out of ITA No.5939/Del./2012, A.Y. 2007-08) C.O. No. 02/Del/2015 (Arising out o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Fis Global Business Solution India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and both Cos are allowed as above

ITA 5939/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRISUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. 24/7 Customer Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 228/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Embassy Golflinks Business Commissioner Of Park, Income Tax, Challaghatta Village, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore. Vs. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaacz1014A Appellant Respondent : Shri Jeepan Nagpal & Mrs. Assessee By Pallavi Sharma, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2005- 06 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Grounds Of Appeal & Question Of Law: A) The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact Seeking Exact Comparability Under Tnnm?

For Respondent: Shri Jeepan Nagpal & Mrs

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 228/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/s. 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Embassy Golflinks Business Commissioner of Park, Income Tax, Challaghatta Village, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore. Vs. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AAACZ1014A APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Jeepan Nagpal & Mrs. Assessee by Pallavi Sharma, CA : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue by CIT DR Date of Hearing : 17-05-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 2406/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble]

Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA VIRTUAL HEARING [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble Accountant Member & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’ble Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 2406/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Kolkata..................................………......Appellant Vs. Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar..........................................…..………………………….………………….…..Respondent Hongkong House 31, B.B.D. Bag (South) Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AFTPP 2386 N] Appearances by: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Vijay S…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs Addl. CIT 34, Community Centre, Range-12, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAACH0812J & Assessment Year: 2005-06 DCIT vs Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Circle 11(1) 34, Community Centre, New Delhi. Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. PAN No. AAACH0812J Assessee by Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Monisha Sharma, Adv. Revenue by Shri Surenderpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 15.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement 1…

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

Supermax Personal Care P.Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy CIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7041/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey()

Section 143(3)

…ating margin of the comparable's selected by the transfer pricing officer. In this regard learned counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of ITAT in the case of Asstt. CITv. Maersk Global Service Centre (I) (P.) Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 47/133 ITD 543 (Mum.) for the following proposition :- "we are unable to accept the contention of the Id. DR for excluding certain cases not rejected by the TPO but which in her opinion did not pass the test comparability. It is evident that Departmental Representative has the duty to defend the order of the Assessing Officer while arguing the appeal filed by t…

ACIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Prudential Process Management Services Inida P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6857/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafnaa/wFor Respondent: Smt. NiluJaggi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.6857/Mum./2010 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–10(3), Mumbai v/s Prudential Process Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Prudential House, Central Avenue ……………. Respondent Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 706 PAN – AACCP7204Q Cross Objection no.197/Mum./2010 Arising out of ITA no.6857/Mum./2010 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Prudential Process Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Prudential House, C…

M/S. Eaton Technologies Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Pune06 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra

Section 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 400/PUN/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. Eaton Technologies Private Limited. Cluster C, Wing-1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, S. No. 77, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune-411 014. PAN : AABCE4323Q. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vishal Kalra : Smt. Nandita Kanchan Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Dat…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Freescale Semiconductor India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1266/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…013 TII-12-HC-Del-TP (Del. HC) ii) Capital IQ Information Systems (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 32 taxman.com 21 (Hyd Tri.) iii) CIT vs. Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. 215 Taxman 539 (Del. HC) iv) ACIT vs. Maersk Global Service Centre (India) (P) Ltd. 133 ITD 543 (Mum Tri.) 4 v) Tevapharm (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 50 SOT 150 (Mum Tri.) vi) Carlyle India Advisors (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 53 SOT 267 (Mum Tri.) vii) ST Microelectronics (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 15 ITR 410 (Del. Tri.) viii) ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 2016-TII-15-HC-DEL-TP (Del. HC) As regards Ground No. 2, the Ld. AR submitted as per Rule 27 of the I…

ACIT, Circle - 14(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Acclaris Business Solutions (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1457/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1457/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Acit, Circle-14(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Acclaris Business Solutions (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aaeca 2366 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjoy Paul, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, AR

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…assessee’s business of ITES. Accordingly this case was excluded from the list of comparables. 4.2. The ld. AR mainly relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the tribunal in the case of ACIT v.Mearsk Global Service Centres (India) Private Limited [(2011) 133 ITD 543 (Mum)] to bring home the point that the case of Cepha Imaging Private Limited should be excluded as the same has been held by the tribunal in that case as incomparable.” “4.4. Adverting to the facts of the instant case we find that the assessee in Mearsk Global Service Centres (India)Private Limited (supra) was a service provider rendering back…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/444/2017HC Karnataka14 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 260

…1/13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A. No.444/2017 BETWEEN : 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095 2. THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER WARD-11(1), PRESENT ADDRESS, WARD-1 (1) (1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.ARAVIND K V, ADV.) AND: M/S.ACUSIS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD. NO.17/2, DOLLARS CHAMBERS,…

Accenture Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7686/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwallaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…s stage is to call into question selection of certain comparables by the TPO himself. This, in our view, is impermissible.While dealing with similar argument advanced by the Department in case of ACIT v/s Maersk Global Service Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., [2011] 133 ITD 543, the Tribuna observed in the following manner:– “40. Having exhausted the argument that the ld. CIT(A) should have examined the cases cited by the assessee as comparable, the ld. DR then took upon herself the task of distinguishing some of such cases. Referring to the material on record, it was stated that in certain cases, the comparison was no…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Visteon Engg. Center (I) Pvt. Ltd., Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 540/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ms. Nupoor ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru

Section 143(3)

…after taking into consideration, the aforesaid aspect, has accepted the claim of the assessee. The assessee further submitted that the Incometax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Centre (India) (P.) Ltd. [2011] 133 ITD 543/16 taxmann.com 47 (Mum.), a copy of which is submitted before us, has also directed for the exclusion of the aforesaid company since it has outsourced a considerable portion of its business. 15 ITA Nos. 316 & 540/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 17. After considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee, we find that…

Visteon Engineering Center (India) Private Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 316/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ms. Nupoor ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru

Section 143(3)

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Capita Offshore Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7141/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia/ Hemen ChandariyaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande-DR

Section 144C(3)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T(TP)A/7141/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-Range-8(1) M/s. Capita Offshore Services Pvt. Ltd. Room No.260A, 2nd Floor 5th Floor, Tower-1 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Phase-II, Logitech Park, Andheri Kurla Mumbai-400 020 Road,…

Swiss Re Shared Services (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s

ITA 1139/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 10A

…gree that there is no dispute as this is a comparable company. 17.3 Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. (VIT) In the case of this comparable, we find that the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India) (P.) Ltd. [2011] 133 ITD 543 / 16 taxmann.com 47 has held that since Vishal Information Technologies Ltd is outsourcing most of its work it has to be excluded from the list whereas the assessee in the cited case was carrying out the work by itself. In the instant case of the assessee also the assessee was carrying out its work by itself whereas in the case of VITL, it is out…

Vasudev Dewani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 765/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…m 310 (SC) 6. Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. DCIT , 44 Taxmann.com 304 (Bom.) 7. Plus Paper Food PAC Ltd. vs. ITO, 56 Taxmann.com 467 (Bom.) 8. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. , 123 Taxman 433 (Del.) 9. ACIT vs. Maersk Global Service Centre (India) (P) Ltd., 16 Taxmann.com 47 (ITAT Mumbai Bench) 10. DCIT vs. Pasupati Spinning & Weaving Mils Ltd. , 20 Taxmann.com 160 (ITAT Delhi Bench) 5 Shri Vasudev Dewani vs. ITO, Ward- 3(4), Jaipur . 11. Epcos India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 72 Taxmann.com 66 (ITAT Kolkata Bench) 2.2 The ld. DR during the course of hearing relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 2.3 Consid…

Hapag-Lloyd Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2300/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ITA No.2300/Mum/2014 & ITA No. 7539/Mum/2014 Hapag-Lloyd Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-2011 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “के” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2300/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7539/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) HAPAG-LLOYD GOLBAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED INCOME TAX, RANGE 10(1), बनाम/ 402-…