Cadbury India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

147 ITD 487Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#22604 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Judgments citing Cadbury India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

The Dy. CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Invida India Pvt.Ltd. ( Now Known As Menarini India Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1316/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ssessing Officer/TPO cannot question the business decision of the assessee as to payment or hold that no service was rendered. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. 345 ITR 241 (Del.) b) Cadbury India Ltd. vs. ACIT – 147 ITD 487 (Mum) A.Y. 2010-11 Page 9 of 13 The Ld. AR submitted that assessee has mentioned in the TP Study Report that the transaction in question is also comparable with the amount charged to other associates. Even otherwise, it is no possible for the parent company to fix margin for all associates in respect of management support services. The Ld. AR f…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……..........….…..........…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd............................………………..................................……………..........Respondent Kulia Kanchrapara Road Kalyani, Nadia Pin – 741 251 [Pan : Aaace 4000 H] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R & Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Fca & S.C. Giri C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 250

…nal in the matter of Cadbury India Ltd. v. Addl. the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Cadbury India Ltd. v. Addl. the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Cadbury India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT reported in CIT reported in [2013] 40 taxmann.com 529/[2014] 147 ITD 487 [2013] 40 taxmann.com 529/[2014] 147 ITD 487, held that: "Ongoing through the records an Ongoing through the records and the orders of the revenue authorities, we find d the orders of the revenue authorities, we find that in so far as the payment of royalty on technical knowhow concerned, the that in so far as the payment of royalty on technical…

The ACIT RG 10(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Netafim Irrigation India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3668/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh

…dents. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) M. Spicer India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.2948/Pun./ 2016, dated 11.12.2018; ii) Spicer India Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.251/Pun./2014, dated 10.02.2017; iii) Cadbury India Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2014] 147 ITD 487, (Mum.); and iv) Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2016] 70 taxmann.com 112. 12. Without prejudice to his submission that the Transfer Pricing Officer has not applied CUP, he submitted, for benchmarking the payment of royalty CUP is not the most appropriate method. He submitted, if the Transfer Pricing Officer was of the view that CPM is…