Bombay in Vodafone India Service (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (359 ITR 133)

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(3)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1834/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 M/S Genpact Services Llc Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 22A & B, Sector-18, Income Tax, Udyog Vihar, Circle – Int. Tax 1(3)(1), Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana-122002 (Pan: Aaccg3353P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Ms. ReemaFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(13)

…r the mandate of Sec. 92CA(4) is obligated to compute the income of the assessee in conformity with the ALP so determined by the TPO, is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in Vodafone India Service (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2013) 359 ITR 133 (Bom) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Oracle India (P) Ltd. (2011) 243 CTR 103 (Del). Also, support is drawn from the order of the ITAT, Delhi in DCIT vs, YKK India Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of a strong conviction that the rejection of the allocation key of reimbursement of ex…

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Genpact Services Llc, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 22A & B, Circle-1(3)(1), Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccg3353P

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Genpact Services LLC, Vs. ACIT, Plot No. 22A and B, Circle-1(3)(1), Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCG3353P Assessee by : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv Ms. Reema Malik, Adv Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 23/01/2024 Date of pronouncement 19/04/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1833/Del/2022 for AY 2017-18, arises out of th…

CABLE AND WIRELESS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6075/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita No. 756/Mum/2017 Cable & Wireless (India) Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Bmr & Associates Bmr House, (International Taxation),Circle-2(1)(1), 36B, R.K. Shirodkar Marg, Parel, Vs. R. No. 1713, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai – 400 012 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 2Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

…r the mandate of Sec. 92CA(4) is obligated to compute the income of the assessee in conformity with the ALP so determined by the TPO, is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in Vodafone India Service (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2013) 359 ITR 133 (Bom) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Oracle India (P) Ltd. (2011) 243 CTR 103 (Del). Also, support is drawn from the order of the ITAT, Delhi in DCIT vs, YKK India Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of a strong conviction that the rejection of the allocation key of reimbursement of ex…

DCIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, Aayakarbhavan, 4Th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani / Ms. Shweta Mahadik, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…ch as Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications 374 ITR 118 (Del), Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. v. DIT 354 ITR 638 Delhi, IHG IT Services 23 ITR (Trib.) 608 (SB) Delhi, Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. 34 taxmann.com 19 (Mumbai Tribunal), Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (359 ITR 133) (Bom) and Patni Computers 215 taxman 108 (Bom). 25. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the word ‘guarantee’ as the name suggests is one where one party provides a written assurance regarding the fulfilment of obligation of another party (AE). It is explained by him that Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. ADIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 193 (Kolkata-…

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2351/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, Aayakarbhavan, 4Th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani / Ms. Shweta Mahadik, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…ch as Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications 374 ITR 118 (Del), Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. v. DIT 354 ITR 638 Delhi, IHG IT Services 23 ITR (Trib.) 608 (SB) Delhi, Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. 34 taxmann.com 19 (Mumbai Tribunal), Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (359 ITR 133) (Bom) and Patni Computers 215 taxman 108 (Bom). 25. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the word ‘guarantee’ as the name suggests is one where one party provides a written assurance regarding the fulfilment of obligation of another party (AE). It is explained by him that Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. ADIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 193 (Kolkata-…

VIDEOCON OIL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6630/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6630/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Mrs. MalathiSridharan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 95

…re making a reference to the TPO. (iii) If these jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied, then the entire order is illegal (para 46). The above mentioned conclusion was also reiterated by Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Service (P.) Ltd. 359 ITR 133. Thus as per amendment provisions of section 92CA(1), before making a reference to the TPO the exercise of finding out whether any income arises and/or is affected or potentially arises and/or is affected by the International Transaction would certainly be a factor to determined by the AO by giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. More…

Bombay in Vodafone India Service (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

Sections most often in play