Solar Turbines India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), Mumbai
In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed
ITA 1075/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2017AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1075/Mum./2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011–12) Solar Turbines India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Turbomach India P. Ltd.), 401, 402, 403, 4Th Floor ……………. Appellant Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Business Park Powai, Mumbai 400 076 Pan – Aabct7422R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–15(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde A/W Shri Ketan Ved रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 02.01.2017 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.
For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde a/wFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)
…section 92B of the Act, hence, there is no question of determining arm's length price notionally. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– 1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v/s CIT, 381 ITR 117; 2. Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd. v/s ACIT 381 ITR 227 3. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd. v/s DCIT, 49/473 (Trib.) 10. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, even if the transaction value is zero still arm's length price has to be computed since the assessee and the A.E. are related parties. He submitted, since the A.E. has no P.E. in India and the assessee being a related party, is functioning in I…
