CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.

367 ITR 730High Court2014#874 most cited

What is CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. authority for?

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

120

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) · Section 92C · intra-group services · reimbursement of expenses · Arm's Length Price · transfer pricing adjustment · Technical Services Agreement charges · benchmarking analysis · cost plus method · Section 144C · services rendered · ALP 'nil'

Also reported as

269 CTR 1660 Taxmann.com 168

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144BSection 92CA(3)Section 144C(5)Section 1961Section 234CSection 92C

Issues it is cited on

intra group servicessection 10b(8)section 92c(1)benchmarking analysisbusiness transfer agreementcost plus methodinterest on outstanding receivablescup methodspecified domestic transactionmost appropriate methoddepreciation on goodwillinterest u/s 234c

Judgments citing CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

…searched for any\ncomparable transaction for considering the arm's length price at NIL. In this\nregard, it is relevant to note the following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in CIT v/s Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in\n[2014] 367 ITR 730 (Del.): - \n\"35. The TPO's Report is, subsequent to the Finance Act, 2007, binding on the\nAO. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the TPO's\nauthority in this case, which is to determining the ALP for international\ntransactions referred to him or her by the AO, rather than determining whether\nsuch services exist o…

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

…searched for any\ncomparable transaction for considering the arm's length price at NIL. In this\nregard, it is relevant to note the following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in CIT v/s Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in\n[2014] 367 ITR 730 (Del.): -\n\"35. The TPO's Report is, subsequent to the Finance Act, 2007, binding on the\nAO. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the TPO's\nauthority in this case, which is to determining the ALP for international\ntransactions referred to him or her by the AO, rather than determining whether\nsuch services exist or…

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5618/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

…submitted no addition is called for. 27. Learned DR on the other hand pointed to the observations made by DRP. She also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Cushman And Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 730 and decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd.(WP-6807 of 2012 order dated 25.04.2014). 28. Learned AR in the rejoinder submitted that the expenses were in the nature of reimbursement and there is no whisper in the order of TPO of the assessee having rendered any services and that assessee colle…

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1449/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

…submitted no addition is called for. 27. Learned DR on the other hand pointed to the observations made by DRP. She also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Cushman And Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 730 and decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd.(WP-6807 of 2012 order dated 25.04.2014). 28. Learned AR in the rejoinder submitted that the expenses were in the nature of reimbursement and there is no whisper in the order of TPO of the assessee having rendered any services and that assessee colle…

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1448/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

…submitted no addition is called for. 27. Learned DR on the other hand pointed to the observations made by DRP. She also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Cushman And Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 367 ITR 730 and decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd.(WP-6807 of 2012 order dated 25.04.2014). 28. Learned AR in the rejoinder submitted that the expenses were in the nature of reimbursement and there is no whisper in the order of TPO of the assessee having rendered any services and that assessee colle…

GBT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,OSD, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1764/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…arguments, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of: i. EKL Appliance Ltd.: [2012] 345 ITR 241 (please refer para nos. 22-24 of this decision) ii. Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.: [2014] 367 ITR 730 (please refer para nos. 34-36 of this decision) 10. The Ld. Counsel argued that the TSA charge was part of the cost base under the India Business Segment, which was recovered along with the mark- up from its AEs. Hence, the disallowance of such costs would have a corresponding negative impact on its taxable income/profits (please refer page nos.…

RUBICON RESEARCH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUBICON RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6647/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6647/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- Circle Known As Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine Medone House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1422M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri. Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…human resources, legal & tax. (xiv) The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 199/209 Taxman 200/345 ITR 241 (Delhi) (para 13), CIT V. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. [2014] 46 taxmann.com 317/367 ITR 730 (Delhi) (para 13) has held that the benefit test to determine the ALP at Nil for IGS services cannot be accepted as same has to be seen from the point of view of the assessee on the basis of facts. The Ld. TPO has examined the facts of the case, examined the claimed nature and extent of the so-called services. Hon'ble ITAT in EOS Power India (P.)…

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

ITA 340/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.340/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) & S.A. No. 15/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Teejay India Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 15, Brandix, Apsez, Income Tax, Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram Circle-5(1), Mandal, Visakhapatnam-530011. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaaco9452H (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…1 (AY 2016-17) wherein vide para 22 of the order it was held that the ALP of the international transaction was treated to be NIL is not valid by following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt Ltd [2014] 367 ITR 730 (Del.). The Ld. AR also referred to Rule 10AB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 wherein the determination of ALP in relation to an international transaction shall be any method which takes into account the price which has been charged or paid, or would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction, with or between non-as…

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

…searched for any comparable transaction for considering the\narm's length price at NIL. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following\nobservations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Cushman and\nWakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2014] 367 ITR 730 (Del.): -\n“35. The TPO's Report is, subsequent to the Finance Act, 2007, binding on the\nAO. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the TPO's\nauthority in this case, which is to determining the ALP for international\ntransactions referred to him or her by the AO, rather than determining whether\nsuch services exist or…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand
Section 143(2)Section 92Section 92C

…tion between non-associated enterprises, straightaway treated the value of the international transaction to be at NIL. In this regard, it is relevant to note following observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cushman and Wakefield (India) Put. Ltd., [2014] 367 ITR 730 (Del.): 35. The TPO's Report is, subsequent to the Finance Act 2007. binding on the AO. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the TPO's authority in this case, which is to determining the ALP for international transactions referred to him or her by the AO, rather than determining whether such services exist or benefits…

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 4328/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…posed the reduction of INR 98,26,24,597/- in the\ndeduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act.\n18. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by placing\nreliance on the judgement of Hon'ble High court in the case of CIT\nvs Cushman & Wakefield 367 ITR 730 (Del.).\n19. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the\nTribunal.\n20. Before us, ld. CIT DR for the Revenue stated that the TPO has\nheld that the steam is a by-product and generated during the\nproduction activity and its cost has already been absorbed in the\nmanufacturing activity therefore, it has no cost remained. Ld. CIT\…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 927/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…sed the reduction of INR 98,26,24,597/- in the\ndeduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act.\n\n18. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by placing\nreliance on the judgement of Hon'ble High court in the case of CIT\nvs Cushman & Wakefield 367 ITR 730 (Del.).\n\n19. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the\nTribunal.\n\n20. Before us, ld. CIT DR for the Revenue stated that the TPO has\nheld that the steam is a by-product and generated during the\nproduction activity and its cost has already been absorbed in the\nmanufacturing activity therefore, it has no cost remained. Ld.…

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2587/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…posed the reduction of INR 98,26,24,597/- in the\ndeduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act.\n18. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by placing\nreliance on the judgement of Hon'ble High court in the case of CIT\nvs Cushman & Wakefield 367 ITR 730 (Del.).\n19. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the\nTribunal.\n20. Before us, ld. CIT DR for the Revenue stated that the TPO has\nheld that the steam is a by-product and generated during the\nproduction activity and its cost has already been absorbed in the\nmanufacturing activity therefore, it has no cost remained. Ld. CIT\…

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

ITA 704/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…sed the reduction of INR 98,26,24,597/- in the\ndeduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act.\n\n18. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by placing\nreliance on the judgement of Hon’ble High court in the case of CIT\nvs Cushman & Wakefield 367 ITR 730 (Del.).\n\n19. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the\nTribunal.\n\n20. Before us, ld. CIT DR for the Revenue stated that the TPO has\nheld that the steam is a by-product and generated during the\nproduction activity and its cost has already been absorbed in the\nmanufacturing activity therefore, it has no cost remained. Ld.…

NORTH DELHI METRO MALL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(1), C.R. BUILDING, DELHI, CR BUILDING

ITA 5192/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22 North Delhi Metro Mall Private Vs Dcit, Limited, Circle-16(1), The Mall Road, Delhi. Khyber Pass Civil Lines, Delhi – 110 054, Pan: Aadcm7638N

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 North Delhi Metro Mall Private Vs DCIT, Limited, Circle-16(1), The Mall Road, Delhi. Khyber Pass Civil Lines, Delhi – 110 054, PAN: AADCM7638N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 13.09.2024 pa…

ARISTON GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1680/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1680/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ariston Group India Private The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, 1St Floor, Office No.103, V National Faceless Mayfai Tower, Wakdewadi, S. Assessment Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. Delhi(“Nfac”), The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pan: Aaoca7042D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 18.06.2024 For A.Y.2020- 21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ariston Group India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ariston India' Or 'The Appellant) Prefers An Appeal For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Against

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 92C

…tion between non-associated enterprises, straightaway treated the value of the international transaction to be at NIL. In this regard, it is relevant to note following observations of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 367 ITR 730 (Del.): “35. The TPO's Report is, subsequent to the Finance Act 2007. binding on the AO. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the TPO's authority in this case, which is to determining the ALP for international transactions referred to him or her by the AO, rather than determining whether such services exist or benefit…

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

…93 (Bombay)\nCIT v/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. reported in [2017] 297 CTR 480 (Bombay)\nCIT v/s. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 288 CTR 46 (Bombay)\nCIT v/s. SI Group India Ltd. (2019) 265 Taxman 204 (Bombay)\nCIT v/s. Cushman and Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Delhi)\n7. 2. Thus, in view of the foregoing judicial precedents, the Ld. AR submits that\nsince the TPO did not resort to any one of the methods provided for in section\n92C while arriving at the ALP of the payment of royalty at Nil, the transfer pricing\nadjustment made by the TPO in respect thereof ought to be deleted.\n8. The Ld. CIT-DR veh…

BORGWARNER EMISSIONS SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2015/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…-2018 (CHNY)-TP); on para 16 only extracted from the decision by Hon’ble Bench of ITAT, Delhi, in Goodyear India Ltd. v. DCIT, (2016) 70 taxmann. Com 67 (Delhi); on the observations extracted from decision in CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) P. Ltd., (2014) 367 ITR 730; observations extracted from decision in Magneti Marelli Powertrain India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.350 of 2014, by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. At the same time, Learned AR for the assessee has contended that when Ld. TPO was unable to provide sufficient data of comparability as regards TSS and BSS, it was imperative to adopt Aggregation approach i…

GATES INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2379/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…se under Section 37 of the Act. The TPO cannot benchmark a transaction at ‘Nil’ under CUP method on the premise of business of benefit derived by the assessee from a given transaction as observed in the case of CIT vs. Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd., 367 ITR 730 (Del) under the transfer pricing provision the TPO has computed the ALP of transaction and such transaction cannot be benchmarked unless the expenditure has been incurred as held in CIT vs. EKL Appliances, 345 ITR 241 (Del). The benefit test thus has no relevance. (xiii) In the case of sister concern of the assessee, namely, M/s. Gates Unitta (I…

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 346/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

…er. We are of the opinion Goodyear India Ltd. that, ascertaining whether a service has actually benefitted the assessee is not within the prerogative of the tax authorities. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 730(Del) has held that the authority of the TPO is limited to conducting transfer pricing analysis for determining the ALP of an international transaction and not to decide if such services exist or benefits did accrue to the assessee. Such later aspects have been held to be falling in the exclusive domain of the AO. 17. Accordingly, in view of the…

Showing 1–20 of 120 · Page 1 of 6

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (367 ITR 730) — Cited in 120 Judgments | BharatTax