CIT v. Alstom Projects India Ltd.

394 ITR 141High Court2017#6595 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also reported as

88 Taxmann.com 465

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(14)(i)Section 10(5)Section 192 Section 37(1)Section 10AA Section 144C Section 153(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 92c(1)section 92c(2)specified domestic transaction comparable companies arms length price transfer pricing adjustment most appropriate method arm's length price section 92ca associated enterprise tnmm section 92c

Judgments citing CIT v. Alstom Projects India Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. BRADY COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 2381/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Suryanarayana Advocate & Ms

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…hole of the transaction of the assessee is already judicially decided. by several High Courts CIT v. Goldstar Jewellery Design (P.) Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 86/238 Taxman 5/388 ITR 510 (Bombay) and CIT v. Alstom Projects India Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 465/394 ITR 141 (Bombay) . Issues is pending before Honourable supreme court as SLP is granted against High Court's ruling that ALP can only be considered on transactions with AEs and not on entire turnover of assessee in Commissioner of Income-tax,Mumbai vs. Firestone International (P.) Ltd. [2016] 73 taxmann.com 39 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 7 (SC)[16-08-2016].The…

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. DNJ CREATION LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

ITA 4329/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 92C

…ified domestic transaction. The TPO has no jurisdiction to proposed as adjustment on transactions with unrelated third party. To support such submission, the ld A.R. of the assessee relied upon the following decisions;  CIT versus Alston Project India Ltd (394 ITR 141 ),  CIT versus Bhansali & CO. (94 taxmann.com552) (Bombay),  DCIT versus Spicer India Ltd (458 ITR 40)(Bombay) 10. The ld AR of the assessee further submits that SDT value (purchase of Diamond from DTA unit by the manufacturing unit of LLP) it only of ₹ 26.53 crore, not Rs. 124.23 crore. TPO calculation of 8.76% on Rs. 124.23 crore amounting…

ACIT, JHANDEWALAN vs. M/S MANKIND PHARMA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S MAGNET LABS PVT. LTD.), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue dismissed

ITA 5141/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Earlier Circle-16(1), Known As M/S Magnet Labs Pvt. Delhi. Ltd.), 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As M/S Magnet Circle-16(1), Labs Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Rahul Prabhakar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…vs. Excel Industries Ltd. [358 ITR 295 (SC)]; ii. Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT [193 ITR 321 (SC)]; iii. CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356 (SC); iv. CIT Vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd., 245 ITR 492 (Delhi); v. CIT Vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd., 394 ITR 141 (Bombay); 10. Then we are of considered view that given the nature of expenses incurred by the employees, at the time of their travel, to procure business, it is not prudent to expect them to make every claim on the basis of sound invoices or bills. There is no reason to assume employees would be making incorrect claims of such expenses without…

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR OF MAGNET LABS PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1) DELHI, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1) , DELHI

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

ITA 475/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumarmckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 16 (1), 3Rd Floor, Block Iii, Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccm2356G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 21.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER McKinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 16 (1), 3rd Floor, Block III, Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (PAN : AACCM2356G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.04.2024 Date of Order : 04.06.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed again…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BUNGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4781/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Dy. Commissioner Vs. M/s. Bunge India Pvt. of Income Tax-9(2)(1) Ltd., Room No.665A, The Capital, 601C & 6th Floor 601D, 6th Floor,C-70 Aayakar Bhavan G Block, Bandra Kurla M.K. Marg Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAACG7034K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.322/Mum/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.4780/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year :2010-11) & CO No.324/Mum/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.4781/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year :2011-12) M/s. Bunge India Vs. T…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BUNGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4780/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

VOLVO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AB,SWEDEN vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2169/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

…. Excel Industries Ltd, 358 ITR 295 (SC) 8 | P a g e AY: 2020-21 Volvo Information Technology AB 4. CIT Vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd., 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) 5. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 14/2013 (Delhi) 6. CIT Vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd., 394 ITR 141 (Bombay) 7. Pr. CIT Vs. Nippon Leakless Talbross Pvt. Ltd. 455 ITR 335 (P&B) 8. SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 704/Mum/2012) 9. Donaldson India Filter Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 101 taxmann.com 66 (ITAT, Delhi) 10. NIIT Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 180 ITD 141 12. Without prejudice, he submitted that the nature of support services provided by th…

MOS METRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2797/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Senguttuvan, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…eved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd., [2017] 394 ITR 141, CIT vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd., [2016] 381 ITR 413 and ITAT, Chennai in the case of Yongsan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT in ITA No.357/Mds/2017. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Alstom Projects India Ltd., supra, has held as under:- "We are in respectful agreement with the view of the Delhi High Court in Kei…

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2806/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2806/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Toyota Tsusho India Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of Plot No.33 & 34, Bidadi Industrial Area Income-tax, Ramanagar District Circle-3(1)(1), Vs. Bangalore 562 109 Bangalore PAN NO : AADCS 6230 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 10.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD…

M/S MAGNA AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 171/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.171/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Magna Automotive Vs. Dcit, Tp-2(1), Pune. India Pvt. Ltd., Plot A 12, Navlakh Umbre Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aadcc6465D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Smt. Riddhi Maru Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswara Rao Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi’S Assessment Dated 19.01.2022 Framed In Tune To The Cit (Drp-3), Mumbai-2’S Directions Dated 30.11.2021 Involving Objection Number & Date 102200/2021-22 & 29.04.2021, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bb Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswara Rao

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.171/PUN/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Magna Automotive Vs. DCIT, TP-2(1), Pune. India Pvt. Ltd., Plot A 12, Navlakh Umbre Baner, Pune- 411045. PAN : AADCC6465D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Smt. Riddhi Maru Revenue by : Shri B. Koteswara Rao Date of hearing : 21.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 13.10.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises agains…

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2014-15 M/s. Continental Automotive Vs. DCIT, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. PAN : AAKCS 9578 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.…

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 713/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 713/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s. Continental Automotive Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Components (India) Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Circle 2(1)(1), Industrial Area, Hosur Road, Bengaluru. Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore – 560 099. PAN: AAKCS 9578C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 29.09.2021 Date…

DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ALSTOM INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed, assessee’s cross objection is dismissed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1727/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna &For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2010-11 DCIT – 1(1)(1), vs. M/s. Alstom India Ltd., Mumbai. (Appellant) (Formerly Alstom Project India Ltd.) The International, 5th floor, 16, New Marine Lines, Off M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. PAN : AABCA8679F (Respondent) CO NO. 71/MUM/2015 : A.Y : 2010-11 (in ITA NO. 1727/MUM/2015) M/s. Alstom India Ltd., vs. ITO – 1(1)(1), The International, 5th floor, 16, Mumbai. (Respondent/ New Marine Lines, Off M.K. Road, Orig. Appellant) Mumbai 400 020. PAN : AABCA867…

SUMITOMO CHEMICAL (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6432/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma PhatarphekarFor Respondent: Shri Bhoopathi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.6432/Mum./2017 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Sumitomo Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. 195/7, 7th Floor, Moti Mahal ……………. Appellant J.T. Road, Churchgate Mumbai 400 020 PAN–AAECS3750L v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circl–13(1), Mumbai Assessee by :Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar Revenue by :Shri Bhoopathi Date of Hearing – 06.07.2020 Date of Order – 27.07.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging t…

HOWDEN INSURANCE BROKERS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6997/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodhowden Insurance Brokers India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit- (Osd) 3(1), 6Th Floor, Pennisula Chambers, Pennisula 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Mrg, Mumbai 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay Mehta and Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri M.C Omi Ningshen, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…rice was only to be confined in respect of the transactions carried out by the assessee with its associate enterprises. Also, a similar view was once again reiterated by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 141 (Bom). In the said case, the Hon‟ble High Court had observed that the mandate in Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where under transfer pricing adjustment was done was only to redetermine the consideration received or given to arrive at the income arising from the international transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises. Ac…

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5924/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…this transaction, has erroneously taken the total operating expenses at the entity level, which is not permissible. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd. reported in 78 [2017] 394 ITR 141 (Bombay) and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Keihin Panalfa Ltd. (ITA No.11 of 2015), judgment dated 09.09.2015. He further pointed out that the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel has decided this issue in favour of Assessee in Assessment Year 2014-15 whilst directing the TPO to allow proportionate adjustment and restricting t…

BRISTLECONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR- 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1670/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1670/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Bristlecone India Limited, A.C.I.T, 2Nd Floor, Techniplex I, Circle-2(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Techniplex Complex, Vs. Mumbai- 400 020. Off Ceer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon West, Mumbai – 400 062. Pan: Aaacm5186E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V.Jenardhanan Assessee By: Shri H.P.Mahajani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24/01/2018 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao), Dated 20.01.2015, Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(13)Of The Act,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Rendering Software Services,Filed Its Original Return On 29.09.2010, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 72.92 Lakhs.Later On,A Revised Return Was Filed On 17.03.2011.The Ao Completed The Assessment, Determining Its Income At Rs.5.84 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri H.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri V.Jenardhanan

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…, service or facility in which case the allocation, apportionment or contribution towards the cost or expenditure is to be determined in respect of each associated enterprise having regard to the arm’s length price.” In the case of Alstom Projects India Ltd. (394 ITR 141)the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “that the mandate in Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereunder transfer pricing adjustment done was only to redetermine the consideration received or given to arrive at the income arising from the international transactions with associated enterprises. From the above,it is clear that the c…