How many judgments cite CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.?

120 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (367 ITR 730), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C(13), Section 144B, Section 92CA(3), Section 144C(5), Section 1961.

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

367 ITR 730High Court2014#876 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 366,470 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 144B Section 92CA(3)Section 144C(5)Section 1961 Section 234C Section 92C

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

intra group services section 10b(8)section 92c(1)benchmarking analysis business transfer agreement cost plus method interest on outstanding receivables cup method specified domestic transaction most appropriate method depreciation on goodwill interest u/s 234c

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

Goodyear India Ltd, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

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…

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1524/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…PO has held that assessee failed to demonstrate the benefits derive by it. This proposition of the TPO/DRP also do not hold any water in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court of Delhi in the case of Cushman and Wakefield (367 ITR 730). It would not be out of place to mention here that in earlier assessment years, this quarrel was restored to the files of the TPO to decide the issue afresh in the light principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Cushman and Wakefield (supra). 7.16. We have been told that in the set aside assessment proceedings the TPO has onc…

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1121/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80Section 80I

…t determine the ALP under any of the prescribed methods. The question as to whether the TPO can determine the ALP of international transactions as NIL was examined by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/S. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD (INDIA) PVT. LTD (367 ITR 730)(Delhi), wherein it was held as under:- “34. The Court first notes that the authority of the TPO is to conduct a transfer pricing analysis to determine the ALP and not to determine ITA 475/2012 Page 25 whether there is a service or not from which the assessee benefits. That aspect of the exercise is left to the AO. This distinction was made clea…

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 193/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Infor (India) Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax, [Pan No. Aaacb6197Q] Circle-2(1), Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 260

…taking "NIL" price as their Page 8 of 12 ITA TP No. 193/Hyd/2023 S.A.No. 58/Hyd/2023 market rate(s) in issue. And also that they have wrongly applied benefit test as well which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Cushman & Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd., [269 CTR 16] (Del) and CIT Vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) [345 ITR 241] (Del) that it is not within the TPO's domain to ascertain or apply the "benefit" test since the same has to be ascertained from the point of view of an assessee than questioning its wisdom by departmental authorities. His next argument is that it is the assessee's AE had in fact made the…

DCIT, Cir- 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hamon Cooling Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2398/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2161/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kr. Bharati, CIT DR

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

…ated 18.02.2016 the matter was remanded back to the file of the AO/TPO for reconsideration and deciding it in conformity with law laid down by the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 730. 12. In his rival submissions the ld. DR could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 13. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material on record, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by this bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 455/Del/2…

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…ave assigned to the contribution in hypothetically similar situation...” 16. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of EKL Appliances Limited [(2012) 209 Taxman 200 as well as Cushman & Wakefield India Private Limited in ITA No.475/2012 dated 23.5.2014, 367 ITR 730 (Del), rendered similar ruling IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 50 as was rendered in the case of Dresser Rand (supra). In the case of Cushman & Wakefield (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that whether a third party in an uncontrolled transaction with the Taxpayer would have charged amounts…

United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurugram

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

ITA 1523/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1523/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18) Honda Motorcycle and Scooter vs. ACIT, Circle 1 (1), India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram. Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon – 122 050 (Haryana). (PAN : AAACH7467D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate Ms. Manasvini Bajpai, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.07.2023 Date of Order : 22.08.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This…

Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4062/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4062/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 15 Dsidc, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-10(2), Phase-Ii, Scheme-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg2938H Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated Xx.02.2019 Passed By The Ao U/S 254/143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ision in case of Lumax Industries (ITA No.4456/Del/2012) 3.3 We are of the view that ALP of royalty payment could not be taken as NIL and benefit test could not be applied. Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision CIT Vs. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 730 is squarely on this issue. 3.3.2 In so far as the assessee's contention that UCAL could not be taken as comic we do not find the arguments acceptable. Both the assessee and the TPO haw failed to find a comparable using Royalstat data, which has paid royalty to totally unrelated party. It suggest that for benchmarking the ALP for royalty, the soq…

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-7, Bangalore

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

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

…ave assigned to the contribution in hypothetically similar situation...” 16. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of EKL Appliances Limited [(2012) 209 Taxman 200 as well as Cushman & Wakefield India Private Limited in ITA No.475/2012 dated 23.5.2014, 367 ITR 730 (Del), rendered similar ruling as was rendered in the case of Dresser Rand (supra). In the case of Cushman & Wakefield (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that whether a third party in an uncontrolled transaction with the Taxpayer would have charged amounts lower, equal to or greater than the amounts claimed by the AEs, has to perforce…

Thyssenkrupp Idustrial Solutions (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purpose as per above terms

ITA 1957/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Thyssenkrupp Industrial V. Dcit – Range – 15(3)(1) Solutions (India) Private Limited Room No. 451, 4Th Floor {Formerly Known As Uhde India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Private Limited} Mumbai - 400020 Uhde House, L.B.S. Marg Vikhroli (W), Mumbai - 400083 Pan: Aaacu1416H Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri M.M. Golvala & Shri H. Jamshedji Revenue Represented By : Shri Samual Pitta

Section 144CSection 234BSection 234D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Thyssenkrupp Industrial v. DCIT – Range – 15(3)(1) Solutions (India) Private Limited Room No. 451, 4th Floor {Formerly known as Uhde India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Private Limited} Mumbai - 400020 Uhde House, L.B.S. Marg Vikhroli (W), Mumbai - 400083 PAN: AAACU1416H Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented by : Shri M.M. Golvala & Shri H. Jamshedji Revenue Represented by : Shri Samual Pitta Date of Hearing : 17.08.2022 Date of pronouncement : 07.11.…

Mumbai DCIT 4.2.1, Mumbai vs. M/S. Hamon Cooling Systems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2078/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi D Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92

…-12 dated 27.05.2020 relied by him and the judgements of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lever India Exports Ltd [(2017) 78 taxmann.com 88 (Bombay) and Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT Vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt Ltd ((2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) relied by the Hon'ble ITAT specially in Transfer pricing adjudication cannot necessarily always be taken as a binding precedent unless facts and circumstances are in parimateria in a case cited before the Court and the applicability of the decisions and 2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 orders in transfer pricing adjudication can only come after i…

Tekla India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 211/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.211/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Trimble Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Tekla India Pvt. Ltd.) Shree Sawan Knowledge Park, 4th Floor, ……………. Appellant Plot No. D-507, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 PAN – AACCT8089R v/s Income Tax Officer …………….Respondent Ward–15(3)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Divesh Chawla Revenue by : Shri Milind Chavan Date of Hearing – 31/05/2022 Date of Order – 17/08/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP S…

M/S. Sulzer Tech India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt./ Dy./ Asstt. CIT/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 633/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Saeana a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…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…

Thyssenkrupp Industiral Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H. Jamshedji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 40

…ertook any benchmarking analysis nor searched any comparable transaction for considering the arm’s length price 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 benefi…

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2569/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2013-14 United Breweries Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner UB Tower, UB City, of Income Tax, 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. PAN: AAACU 6053C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 24.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member…

Voith Siemens Hydro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5886/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08 Voith Siemens Hydro Private Limited Vs. Acit, Circle (Now Known As “Voith Hydro Private 17(1) Limited”) New Delhi. 4346/4C, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 Pan No. Aabcv5041J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT (DR)

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260ASection 37(1)

…r not the services were received by the payer assessee cannot be the subject matter of consideration by the Ld. TPO. In taking this view, we are supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 730 (DEL). 5.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt.…

Damico Ship Ishima India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(1), Raigad

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6112/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6112/मुं/2014 ("न. व. 2009-10) M/S. Damico Ship Ishima India Private Limited. A-202/203, City Point, J.B.Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaics-2005-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assist. Commissioner Of Income Tax., Circle 9(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “के” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम◌ालगण लेखा सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 6112/मुं/2014 ("न. व. 2009-10) M/s. Damico Ship Ishima India Private Limited. A-202/203, City Point, J.B.Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059 PAN: AAICS-2005-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assist. Commissioner of Income Tax., Circle 9(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Shri Jitendra Jain ""तवाद"…

Federal Mogul Ignition Products (India) Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1689/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92D

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1689/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) Federal Mogul Ignition Products Vs ACIT (India) Ltd. Circle 9(1) G-4, J. R. Complex, Gate No. 4, New Delhi Mandoli, North East, Delhi PAN No. AAACF4128M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv, Mr. Rishabh Malhotra, AR & Ms. Subhangi Arora, AR Respondent by Sh. Surender Pal, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This is an ap…