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

M/S. Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6794/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Alok Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM Assessment Year : 2011-12 Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, C/o SS Kothari Mehta & Co., CAs, Circle-10(2), 146, Tribhuvan Complex, Ishwar New Delhi. Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi. PAN: AADCG2938H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Gupta, FCA, Shri Pancham Sethi, FCA & Shri Arprit Mittal, CA Department By : Shri A.M. Govil, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 26.04.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the…

Syngenta Biosciences P.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT Cir 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1083/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Syngenta Biosciences Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Amar Pradigm, Survey No.110/113, Tax, Circle-1(3), Mumbai. Baner Road, Pune-411045 564, Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. (Pan:Aaacz0348M) Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra P. Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)Section 92F

…section 92C(3) of the Act. Contention of the appellant is therefore not acceptable. ix. With regards to the appellant’s contention that burden of proof rested with the revenue, it is mentioned that in the case of Aztec Software and Technology Services Limited 107 ITD 141, Hon’ble ITAT Bangalore (Special Bench) (which has been upheld by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court) held that the burden to establish that international transaction was carried at Arm’s Length’s Price is on taxpayer. He is also to furnish comparable transactions, apply appropriate method for determination of ALP and justify the same by producing rele…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2876/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…s form 3CEB and thus provisions of S. 92C(3) were satisfied. It is further not the case that there is no approval of the CIT. The issue pertaining to the reference made by the AO to the TPO has been dealt in by the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of “Aztec Software” 107 ITD 141 Bangalore SB which has been affirmed by_Hon’ble Karnataka High Court 23 taxmann.com 413. Accordingly the contention raised by the appellant that the reference made by the AO was bad in law and therefore the consequent assessment order, is not found to be acceptable and is accordingly rejected. ix. The appellant has contended that it is not in the…

Siro Clinpharm P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2618/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…s form 3CEB and thus provisions of S. 92C(3) were satisfied. It is further not the case that there is no approval of the CIT. The issue pertaining to the reference made by the AO to the TPO has been dealt in by the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of “Aztec Software” 107 ITD 141 Bangalore SB which has been affirmed by_Hon’ble Karnataka High Court 23 taxmann.com 413. Accordingly the contention raised by the appellant that the reference made by the AO was bad in law and therefore the consequent assessment order, is not found to be acceptable and is accordingly rejected. ix. The appellant has contended that it is not in the…

Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6200/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT,DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM Assessment Year : 2008-09 Headstrong Services India Vs. DCIT, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-12(1), 103, Ashoka Estate, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AABCT7650D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Shri Shailesh Kumar, Advocates Department By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT,DR Shri Deepak Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fritidsresor Tours & Travels India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1480/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…s (India) P. Ltd. VS. DCIT (2015) 93 CCH 29 DelHC that the multiple year data should be ordinarily avoided. Consideration of the single year data was earlier approved by the Special bench of the tribunal in Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 141 (Bang.) (SB). In spite of these decisions, the determination of the ALP has been made on the 29 basis of multiple year data and not the current year data alone, which is not correct. 16.3. The AO has worked out addition by way of transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.91.80 lac by applying the arithmetic mean of the ratio of `Net profit t…

CIT vs. Marubeni India Pvt Ltd

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA/1114/2011HC Delhi25 Apr 2013

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(3)Section 92

…learned counsel for the assessee did not press this ground of appeal on the ground that Special Bench’s decision of the ITAT in the case of Aztectech Software & Technology is against the assessee. This is against the assessee. This decision is reported in 107 ITD 141 and it has been reaffirmed in the case of Mentorgraphic (109 ITD page 101). Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected.” ITA 1042/2011 & 1114/2011 Page 13 of 22 In the light of the above we do not consider it appropriate to entertain question No.5 which also does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. 17. Ques…

Marubeni India Pvt Ltd

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA - 1042 / 2011HC Delhi25 Apr 2013
Section 143(3)Section 92

…learned counsel for the assessee did not press this ground of appeal on the ground that Special Bench’s decision of the ITAT in the case of Aztectech Software & Technology is against the assessee. This is against the assessee. This decision is reported in 107 ITD 141 and it has been reaffirmed in the case of Mentorgraphic (109 ITD page 101). Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected.” 2013:DHC:2072-DB ITA 1042/2011 & 1114/2011 Page 13 of 22 In the light of the above we do not consider it appropriate to entertain question No.5 which also does not arise out of the order of the Tribuna…

CIT vs. Marubeni India Pvt Ltd

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA - 1114 / 2011HC Delhi25 Apr 2013
Section 143(3)Section 92

…learned counsel for the assessee did not press this ground of appeal on the ground that Special Bench’s decision of the ITAT in the case of Aztectech Software & Technology is against the assessee. This is against the assessee. This decision is reported in 107 ITD 141 and it has been reaffirmed in the case of Mentorgraphic (109 ITD page 101). Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected.” 2013:DHC:2072-DB ITA 1042/2011 & 1114/2011 Page 13 of 22 In the light of the above we do not consider it appropriate to entertain question No.5 which also does not arise out of the order of the Tribuna…

Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA/1042/2011HC Delhi25 Apr 2013
Section 143(3)Section 92

…learned counsel for the assessee did not press this ground of appeal on the ground that Special Bench’s decision of the ITAT in the case of Aztectech Software & Technology is against the assessee. This is against the assessee. This decision is reported in 107 ITD 141 and it has been reaffirmed in the case of Mentorgraphic (109 ITD page 101). Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected.” 2013:DHC:2072-DB ITA 1042/2011 & 1114/2011 Page 13 of 22 In the light of the above we do not consider it appropriate to entertain question No.5 which also does not arise out of the order of the Tribuna…