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.

Dict, Chennai vs. Ford Global Technoloiges Llc, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as

ITA 3095/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3095/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: 11.01.2022

Section 92

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3095/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs M/s. Ford Global Technologies Tax, LLC., Circle-1(1), International Taxation, GST Road, SP Koil Post, Chennai-6. Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram-603 204. PAN: AAACF 7286N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CIT अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by…

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ubmitted 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 col…

Metalsa India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “I–1”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 449/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Metalsa India Private DCIT, Limited, Vs. 27, 1st Floor, Babar Lane, Circle : 16 (2), Bengali Market, New Delhi – 110 001. New Delhi. PAN: AAFCM3091H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C. A.; Department by: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. D.R.; Date of Hearing : 03/11/2021 Date of pronouncement : 07/12/2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J. M. 1. The aforesaid appeal…

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…pugned adjustments :- 17 -: ITA-TP No.198/Hyd/2021 thereby taking “NIL” price as their 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…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Neac, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana-121001. Pan-Aaacg3511H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Surendra Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…neficial to the taxpayer. We are of the opinion 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…

M/S Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 839/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.3/1, Jp Technopark Millers Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 001. Circle – 2(1)(2), Pan : Aaaci 7940 L Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Surya Narayana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.02.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The First Issue That Requires Adjudication In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Order Of The Ao In Determining The Alp Of The International Transaction Pertaining To Payment For Intra Group Services As Nil Against A Sum Of Rs.4,06,89,430/- Claimed By The Assessee To Have Been Paid To The Ae & Adding The Sum Of Rs.4,06,89,430/- As Income Of The Assessee Under Section 92 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Page 2 Of 13 3. The Facts With Regard To The Aforesaid Issue Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 92

…ed to the contribution in hypothetically similar situation. .." 10. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 209 Taxman 200/24 taxmann.com 199/345 ITR 241 as well ell as CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield India (P.) Ltd. 12014] 367 ITR 730/46 taxmann.com 317 (Delhi) rendered similar ruling as was rendered in the case of Dresser Rand India (P.) Ltd. (supra). In the case of Cushman & Wakefield India (P.) Ltd. (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 greate…

M/S Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5222/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…9-10 & the Hon’ble Tribunal while deciding the issue in ITA No.455/Del/2014, remitted the matter back to the AO for the reason that while making the transfer pricing adjustment, the TPO have acted in contradiction to the ratio laid down in Cushman & Wakefield 367 ITR 730. He submitted that the matter was remitted to the file of AO to decide the issue 15 afresh in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Cushman & Wakefield (supra). He further submitted that following the order for A.Y. 2009-10, the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal while deciding the issue in ITA No.370/Del/2015 for A.Y. 20…

M/S Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5088/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

DCIT vs. M/S 3M India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose and that of the Revenue partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 796/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No. 780/Bang/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhuttani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bangalore

Section 92Section 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. 780/Bang/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 3M India Limited, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Plot No.48-51, Electronic City, of Income Tax, Hosur Road, Large Taxpayers Unit (LTU), Bangalore – 561 229. Bangalore. PAN: AAACB 5724H APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 796/Bang/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. 3M India Limited, of Income Tax,Large Taxpayers Unit Plot No.48-51, Electronic City, (LTU),Bangalore. JSS Towers, 100 Hosur Road,…

3M India Ltd vs. Addl.C.I.T

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose and that of the Revenue partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 780/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No. 780/Bang/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhuttani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bangalore

Section 92Section 92C

Hamon Shriram Cottrell P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1882/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1882/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Hamon Cooling Systems Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-9(2) (Earlier Known As M/S Hamon Shriram Aaykar Bhawan बिाम/ Cottrell Pvt. Ltd.) M.K.Road Main Frame, 3A-8A, Gf Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Royal Palam Complex Goregaon(W), Mumbai – 400 065 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-2254-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R.Parikh-Ld.Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra- Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2009-10 Contest Final Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2013 Passed By Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-9(2), Mumbai [Ao] U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra- Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…assessee is challenged by the TPO. Therefore, the ad-hoc determination of ALP by the TPO dehors Section 92C of the Act cannot be sustained…………… 8. On a similar note, Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt Ltd [(2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del)], and approving the path followed by a decision of Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dresser Rand India Pvt Ltd Vs Additional CIT [(2012) 13 ITR (Trib) 422 (Mum)], had observed : 33. The TPO, in this case, noted that the services of the Client Solutions Group did not create any specific benefit for the assessee, but rather, that t…

Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9073/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Honda Motorcycle & Scooter Vs. Dcit, India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2(1), Commercial Complex-Ii, Sector- Gurgaon 49 To 50, Gold Course Road, Extn Road, Gurgaon Pan: Aaach7467D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Honda Motorcycle & Scooter Vs. DCIT, India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2(1), Commercial Complex-II, Sector- Gurgaon 49 to 50, Gold Course Road, Extn Road, Gurgaon PAN: AAACH7467D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Ms. Mansvini Vajpai, Adv Revenue by: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR Date of pronouncement 21/05/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ass…

Adama India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 934/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Mahima Goud & Kruthika Prakash, ARFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES : BENCH “B” HYDERABAD (Through Video Conference) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 934/Hyd./2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s Adama India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN: AABCM8797N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Ms. Mahima Goud & Kruthika Prakash, AR For Revenue: Shri YVST Sai, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 04/05/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is directed against the CIT(A)- 1, Hyder…

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7510/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.7509/Del./2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) ITA No.7510/Del./2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Huawei Telecommunications (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 2 (1), 7th Floor, Tower A, Spaze I-Tech Park, New Delhi. Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon – 122 002. (PAN : AABCH1376E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Deepark Chopra, Advocate Shri Harpreet S. Ajmani, Advocate Shri Rohan Khare, Advocate Ms. Sehr Chopra, Advocate REV…

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7509/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

M/S. Denso India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1078/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Denso India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit B-1/D4, Ground Floor, Circle-7(1) Mohan Cooperative Industrial New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacd4255F (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv & Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv Respondent By Sh. Surendar Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2020

Section 144Section 254Section 92CSection 92D

…tional transaction as Nil on the ground that no such services were required to be availed or it was a duplication of service, is not in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Cushman & Wakefield (India)(P.)Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) wherein it is held that authority of TPO is limited to conducting transfer pricing analysis for determining of ALP. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal the TPO deleted the adjustment pertaining to payment of service in those assessment years while giving effect to the order of the Tribunal. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the contentions of…

Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurugram

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7463/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Surendra Pal, CIT DR

Section 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELH I BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA No.7463 & 7464/DEL/2018 [A.Y 2013-14 & 2014-15] Honda Motorcycle and DCIT Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle – 2 (1) Commercial Complex-II, Gurugram Sector-49-50 Golf Course Extension Road, Gurugram Appellant by : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Advocate Ms. Mansvini Bajpai, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Surendra Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 28.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2020 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: 1. 7463/Del/…

Hamon Shriram Cottrell Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

ITA 4771/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…Assessment year: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 Page 6 of 12 determination of ALP by the TPO dehors Section 92C of the Act cannot be sustained…………… 8. On a similar note, Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt Ltd [(2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del)], and approving the path followed by a decision of Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dresser Rand India Pvt Ltd Vs Additional CIT [(2012) 13 ITR (Trib) 422 (Mum)], had observed : 33. The TPO, in this case, noted that the services of the Client Solutions Group did not create any specific benefit for the assessee, but rather, that…

Hamon Shriram Cottrell P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

ITA 3911/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Caparo Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6702/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Senior DR

Section 14A

…ecided by the AO/TPO independently to examine if such payment is deductible in terms of section 37(1) of the Act in view of the law laid down by the 10 ITA No.6702 & 6703/Del./2014 Hon’ble High Court in the case of Cushman &Wakefield India (P.) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del.). So, the issue is remitted back to the AO/TPO to decide afresh in view of the findings returned in the preceding paras as well as in view of the findings returned by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case in ITA No.444/Del/2015 in Revenue’s appeal for AY 2008-09, hence ground no.1 of AY 2008-09 is determined in favo…