Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

107 ITD 141Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#1260 most cited

What is Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT authority for?

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines can be referred to for resolving transfer pricing disputes in India, even though India is not an OECD member, provided they are consistent with Indian statutory regulations. Availability of exemption under Section 10A does not bar the applicability of Section 92C and 92CA.

90

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT · ITAT · 2007 · 107 ITD 141 · OECD Guidelines · Transfer Pricing Policy · Section 10A · Section 92C · Section 92CA · purposive interpretation · benchmarking analysis

Also reported as

162 Taxmann 119

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234CSection 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 92C(2)Section 10A

Issues it is cited on

section 10b(8)section 132(1)(a)section 92f(ii)section 92(1)purposive interpretationsection 92c(2)cost plus methodsection 43afunctional analysissection 92fbenchmarking analysisr&d expenditure

Judgments citing Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6310/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 6310/DEL/2012 (A.Y 2008-09) Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 701, Guru Apartments, Circle-8(2) Sector-14, Rohini New Delhi New Delhi AAACE8014F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A .No. 1466/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 2nd Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(2) Unitech World-Cyber Park, Jharsa, New Delhi Sector-39 Gurgaon AAACE8014F (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv Respondent by Sh. Kumar Pranav, Sr. DR Date of Heari…

M/S. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5690/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.35, Pace City-I, Sector-37, Vs Income Tax, Circle – 3 (1), Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No. Aaecs5991H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd.35, Pace City-I, Sector-37, Vs Income Tax, Circle – 3 (1), Gurgaon New Delhi PAN No. AAECS5991H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Pradip Dinodia, Advocate Respondent by Smt. Namita Pandey, CIT DR Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Deputy Commissioner of Ltd.35, Pace City-I, Sector-37, Vs Income Tax, Circle – 3 (1), Gurgaon New Delhi PAN No. AAECS5991H (APPE…

M/S. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4237/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.35, Pace City-I, Sector-37, Vs Income Tax, Circle – 3 (1), Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No. Aaecs5991H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd.35, Pace City-I, Sector-37, Vs Income Tax, Circle – 3 (1), Gurgaon New Delhi PAN No. AAECS5991H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Pradip Dinodia, Advocate Respondent by Smt. Namita Pandey, CIT DR Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Deputy Commissioner of Ltd.35, Pace City-I, Sector-37, Vs Income Tax, Circle – 3 (1), Gurgaon New Delhi PAN No. AAECS5991H (APPE…

Bisazza India Limited, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3543/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2018AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…"it is by now acknowledged that granting of excess credit period is a service rendered to the AE and needs to be benchmarked". A reference is then made to Special Bench decision in the case of Aztec Software &Technology Services (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 107 ITD 141/162 Taxman 119 (SB) (Bang.), in support of the proposition that merely by finding fault in the work done by the TPO, the adjustments cannot be deleted and that unless the ALP submitted by the taxpayer is specifically accepted, the appellate authorities, on the basis of material available on record have to determine ALP themselves. 7. We find that…

At&S India Private Limited vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 77/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37Section 92C

…se of determining the arm's length price of international transactions and is to be preferred over the other profit based methods. Reliance is placed in this regard on the following decisions: - Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 107 ITD 141/162 Taxman 119 (Bang.) (SB) - UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 30 SOT 95 (Mum.) - Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. Oy. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 406 (Mum.) - Intervet India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 39 SOT 93 (Mum.) - Asstt. CIT v. Dufon Laboratories [2010] 39 SOT 59 (Mum.) 11. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai…

Tetra Pak India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 521/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…position as well. However, once, the TPO has tried to select a different method, the onus is on the TPO to demonstrate that the other method is the most appropriate method. This principle has been laid down by Special Bench in the case of Aztec Software Ltd. [107 ITD 141 (Bang)(SB)].” 11. The Co-ordinate Bench after considering various decisions relied upon by both the sides concluded that the TPO had wrongly applied CUP method for determining ALP in respect of some of the transactions pertaining to export of finished goods especially when the TPO had accepted more 90% of the export to the AEs. The Tribunal dele…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 665/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…position as well. However, once, the TPO has tried to select a different method, the onus is on the TPO to demonstrate that the other method is the most appropriate method. This principle has been laid down by Special Bench in the case of Aztec Software Ltd. [107 ITD 141 (Bang)(SB)].” 11. The Co-ordinate Bench after considering various decisions relied upon by both the sides concluded that the TPO had wrongly applied CUP method for determining ALP in respect of some of the transactions pertaining to export of finished goods especially when the TPO had accepted more 90% of the export to the AEs. The Tribunal dele…

Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 635/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…position as well. However, once, the TPO has tried to select a different method, the onus is on the TPO to demonstrate that the other method is the most appropriate method. This principle has been laid down by Special Bench in the case of Aztec Software Ltd. [107 ITD 141 (Bang)(SB)].” 11. The Co-ordinate Bench after considering various decisions relied upon by both the sides concluded that the TPO had wrongly applied CUP method for determining ALP in respect of some of the transactions pertaining to export of finished goods especially when the TPO had accepted more 90% of the export to the AEs. The Tribunal dele…

Perstorp Chemicals India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4364/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: S/Shri V. Jenardhanan -DR
Section 254(1)Section 92

…stment of Rs.17.25 lakhs under the heads trading material purchased Rs.3.25 lakhs and sale of goods Rs.14.lakhs.We find that while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee the FAA has referred to two cases of Aztec Software and Technology Services Limited (107 ITD 141)and Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258).He has not dealt with argument raised before him by the assessee .Therefore, we are restoring the issue back to file of FAA for fresh adjudication. He is directed to decide the issue after hearing the assessee.Effective ground of appeal is partly allowed. 9.Last ground of appeal in all the appeals is about in…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai vs. Dhanera Diamonds, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6310/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Asst. Cit-5(1)(2), Mumbai, M/S D. Navinchandra Exports Pvt. Ltd., बिधम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, 210 Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aadcp6855C (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan, D.R
Section 271G

…ty level benchmarking does not lead to correct results and the same will not stand the test of Rule 10B(1)(e) relied on the orders of the Tribunal in the case of (i). UCB India Vs. ACIT 121 ITD 131 (Mum); (ii). Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. (2007) 107 ITD 141 (Bang) (SB) and OECD TP guidelines. Thus, the TPO in the backdrop of his aforesaid observations called upon the assessee to furnish the requisite details in terms of Sec. 92D(3). However, the assessee once again expressed its inability to furnish the requisite information for certain reasons, viz. (i). that no separate books of accounts for AE an…

Asst CIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. D. Navinchandra Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6304/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Asst. Cit-5(1)(2), Mumbai, M/S D. Navinchandra Exports Pvt. Ltd., बिधम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, 210 Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aadcp6855C (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan, D.R
Section 271G

…ty level benchmarking does not lead to correct results and the same will not stand the test of Rule 10B(1)(e) relied on the orders of the Tribunal in the case of (i). UCB India Vs. ACIT 121 ITD 131 (Mum); (ii). Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. (2007) 107 ITD 141 (Bang) (SB) and OECD TP guidelines. Thus, the TPO in the backdrop of his aforesaid observations called upon the assessee to furnish the requisite details in terms of Sec. 92D(3). However, the assessee once again expressed its inability to furnish the requisite information for certain reasons, viz. (i). that no separate books of accounts for AE an…

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Akshar Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6292/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Asst. Cit-5(1)(2), Mumbai, M/S D. Navinchandra Exports Pvt. Ltd., बिधम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, 210 Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aadcp6855C (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan, D.R
Section 271G

…ty level benchmarking does not lead to correct results and the same will not stand the test of Rule 10B(1)(e) relied on the orders of the Tribunal in the case of (i). UCB India Vs. ACIT 121 ITD 131 (Mum); (ii). Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. (2007) 107 ITD 141 (Bang) (SB) and OECD TP guidelines. Thus, the TPO in the backdrop of his aforesaid observations called upon the assessee to furnish the requisite details in terms of Sec. 92D(3). However, the assessee once again expressed its inability to furnish the requisite information for certain reasons, viz. (i). that no separate books of accounts for AE an…

D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

ITA 1681/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2010-11 AY: 2011-12 AY: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., vs DCIT, E-20, 1st & 2nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (PAN: AABCE6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kapil Hirani, CA Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent by : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR) PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER All these appeals have been preferred by the assessee against…

M/S D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

ITA 75/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2010-11 AY: 2011-12 AY: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., vs DCIT, E-20, 1st & 2nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (PAN: AABCE6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kapil Hirani, CA Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent by : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR) PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER All these appeals have been preferred by the assessee against…

D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

ITA 1018/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2010-11 AY: 2011-12 AY: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., vs DCIT, E-20, 1st & 2nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (PAN: AABCE6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kapil Hirani, CA Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent by : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT ( DR) PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER All these appeals have been preferred by the assessee against…

M/S. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1833/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiteradata India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 304, 3Rd Floor, Tower- Circle-Ii, 4A, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aacct6715A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar
Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 92C

…Teradata India Private Limited V DCIT ITA No 1833/Del/2014 AY 2009-10 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Teradata India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, Unit No. 304, 3rd Floor, Tower- Circle-II, 4A, Gurgaon Gurgaon PAN: AACCT6715A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Shri Bharat Jonarthnan, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Senior Departmental representative Date of Hearing 08/03/2017 Date of pronouncement 11/05/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This i…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…. 80-IA(8) of the Act. Underlying principles forming the basis of our findings given hereinbefore in this order are also supported by the decision of Special Bench of Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal in Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 107 ITD 141/15 SOT 49/162 Taxman 119 (Bang.) (SB) as well as Mumbai Tribunal decision in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd. [2011] 133 ITD 543/16 taxmann.com 47 (Mum.) wherein while interpreting the transfer pricing provisions, the Courts have held that it is the assessee who is the best judge to know the transactions und…

At & S India Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2011-12

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Years:2011-12 AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle-11(1), बनाम 12A Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, / V/s. Nanjangud – 571301, Chowringhee Square, Mysore Dist. Karnataka, Kolkata-700 069 [PAN No.AAECA 2930 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant & Smt. Rituparn Singh, AR Shri G. Mallikarjula, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-06-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 03-08-2…

Winergy Drive Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1720/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1720/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Winergy Drive Systems India The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited (Merged With Vs. Income Tax, Siemens Ltd.), Corporate Taxation, Company Circle Iii(3), 3Rd Floor, 130 Pandurang Budhkar Chennai . Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. [Pan: Aaacw5466B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghunathan Sampath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(3)

…e Assessing Officer is an unadjusted industrial average, which cannot be considered in view of the OECD guidelines, which was considered by the Special Bench of Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. v. ACIT 107 ITD 141 (Bang.) (SB), wherein the Tribunal has held as under: 163. The revenue has justified consideration of industrial average as comparable uncontrolled transaction. Before the Transfer Pricing Officer as also in proceedings before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) , the taxpayer had objected to adoption of average and objection is noted in par…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Ucb India Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1218/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1218/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Cit-7(3) M/S. Ucb India Ltd. Room No.615, 6Th Floor, 504, Peninsula Towers, G.K. Marg,Lower Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacu 1627 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1422/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Ucb India Ltd. Dy. Cit-7(3) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand Assessee By: S/Shri M.P. Lohia & Pranay Gandhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 18.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp)- Iii,Mumbai,Dated 25.11. 2013,The Assessing Officer(Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeal.The Assessee Has Filed The Cross-Appeal For The Year Under Appeal. Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Pharmaceutical Products, Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.9.2007,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18.47 Crores. During The Assessment Proceedings,The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions(It.S)With Its Associated Enterprises(Ae).So,He Made A Reference To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price(Alp) Of Such Transactions. After Receiving The Order Of The Tpo The Ao Issued A Draft Order To The Assessee Who Challenged The Same Before The Drp.In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Drp,The Ao Passed An Order U/S.143 (3)R.W.S.144C(5) Of The Act On 27. 12. 2013. Ita/1218/Mum/2014:

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia & Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 254(1)Section 92C(2)

…e settled principles governing cup the comparable should be perfect or realistic and if not it should allow reasonable and accurate adjustment.If the method is unable to achieve the said goal,it has to be rejected. In the case of Aztec Software And Technology(107 ITD 141),the Tribunal has dealt the issue of use of CUP method as under: 116. Meaning of Arm's Length Price is given in Clause (ii) of Section 92F as under: 92F (ii)"Arm's Length Price" means a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions; 117. Thus whatever…