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 144BSection 92CA(3)Section 144C(5)Section 1961Section 234CSection 92C
Read the full judgment

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.

M/S Drhl India Services P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1030/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)-I, ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.1030, 1031 & 1032/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 M/s/. DRHL India Services P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.14, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, Income Tax, Subbannapalaya Extension, Circle 11(1), Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. PAN: AABCD 5225A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Kaushik, Advocate Respondent by : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)-I, ITAT, Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.201…

Topcon Singapore Positioning Pte Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, while ITA No

ITA 5030/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Is A Singapore Based Company Which Held 7,49,999 Shares In An Indian Company By The Name Of Topcon Sokkia India Pvt Ltd (Tsipl, In Short) & 1 Share

Section 143(3)

…ers. It is not open to the TPO to go beyond this role of determining the ALP and intrude in the exclusive domain of the Assessing Officer to determine the income taxable in the hands of the assessee. In the case of Cushman & Wakefield India Ltd Vs CIT [(2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court had an occasion to examine the role of the Transfer Pricing Officer, though in a slightly different context, and Their Lordships were pleased to observe that “the authority of the TPO is to conduct a transfer pricing analysis to determine the ALP” and it does not extend to the areas earmarked for the Asses…

Topcon Singapore Positioning Pte Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, while ITA No

ITA 2/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Is A Singapore Based Company Which Held 7,49,999 Shares In An Indian Company By The Name Of Topcon Sokkia India Pvt Ltd (Tsipl, In Short) & 1 Share

Section 143(3)

…ers. It is not open to the TPO to go beyond this role of determining the ALP and intrude in the exclusive domain of the Assessing Officer to determine the income taxable in the hands of the assessee. In the case of Cushman & Wakefield India Ltd Vs CIT [(2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court had an occasion to examine the role of the Transfer Pricing Officer, though in a slightly different context, and Their Lordships were pleased to observe that “the authority of the TPO is to conduct a transfer pricing analysis to determine the ALP” and it does not extend to the areas earmarked for the Asses…

M/S. Exxonmobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1153/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…of services or shareholders’ services and then the AO making addition simply on the basis of recommendation of the TPO, is not 7 in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del), in which it has been 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. In that case…

M/S Ther Structural Waterproofing Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 112/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.112/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Chryso India Private Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Limited (Formerly Known As ‘The Structural Waterproofing Company Private Limited’) Plot No.D-30/7, Ttc Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee M.I.D.C, Turbhe, Navi Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Mumbai-400 705 (Maharashtra) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabct 0878 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…basis by utilizing the services rendered by its AE pursuant to the management services agreement. We find that the decision relied upon by the ld AR on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) is well founded wherein it was held that :- "35. The Transfer Pricing Officer's report is, subsequent to the Finance Act, 2007, binding on the Assessing Officer. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the Transfer Pricing Officer's authority in this case, which is to determining the arm's length price for internati…

Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1617/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri. Jason P Boazit(Tp)A 1617/Bang/2012 (Asst. Year – 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 27lSection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’ BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A 1617/Bang/2012 (Asst. Year – 2008-09) DMG Mori Seiki India Machines And Services Pvt. Ltd ( Erstwhile DMG Deckel Maho Gildemeister (India) Pvt. Ltd.,), No.3/1, 3rd Main Road, KIADB, Peenya 1st Stage, Bangalore –560058, PAN: AABCD0003E. ….Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Bangalore. …..Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT Date of Hearing : 26-04-2018 Date o…

M/S.Filtrex Technologies Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 469/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos.469/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) M/S Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #36/4, Raghavendra Nagar, Near Ring Road, 4Th Cross, Hrbr Layout, Bangalore. Pan – Aaacf4091P. …..Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-(3)(1), Bengaluru. …. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.A Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.469/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) M/s Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #36/4, Raghavendra Nagar, Near Ring Road, 4th Cross, HRBR Layout, Bangalore. PAN – AAACF4091P. …..Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-(3)(1), Bengaluru. …. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.A Respondent by : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 08-03-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R PER SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL ME…

M/S. Philips India Limited (Formerly Philips Electronics India Litd.), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2489/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

…Supreme Court in the case of Radhasaomi Satsang vs CIT reported in (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) . 4.6. We find that the decision relied upon by the ld AR on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) is well founded wherein it was held that :- "35. The Transfer Pricing Officer's report is, subsequent to the Finance Act, 2007, binding on the Assessing Officer. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the Transfer Pricing Officer's authority in this case, which is to determining the arm's length price for internati…

M/S Phillips India Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 612/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

…upreme Court in the case of Radhasaomi Satsang vs CIT reported in (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) . 4.6. We find that the decision relied upon by the ld AR on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) is well founded wherein it was held that :- "35. The Transfer Pricing Officer's report is, subsequent to the Finance Act, 2007, binding on the Assessing Officer. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the Transfer Pricing Officer's authority in this case, which is to determining the arm's length price for internati…

Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6998/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2013-14 Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 6(2), Dsm 249, Dlf Tower, New Delhi. Vs. Shivaji Marg, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcr6921P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ere is no independent discussion in the assessment order about the disallowance of royalty payment, except for reproduction of the relevant parts from the order of the TPO. 9. 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. In that case, it was observed tha…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Philips India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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

…Supreme Court in the case of Radhasaomi Satsang vs CIT reported in (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) . 4.6. We find that the decision relied upon by the ld AR on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) is well founded wherein it was held that :- "35. The Transfer Pricing Officer's report is, subsequent to the Finance Act, 2007, binding on the Assessing Officer. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the Transfer Pricing Officer's authority in this case, which is to determining the arm's length price for internati…

M/S Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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

…Supreme Court in the case of Radhasaomi Satsang vs CIT reported in (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) . 4.6. We find that the decision relied upon by the ld AR on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) is well founded wherein it was held that :- "35. The Transfer Pricing Officer's report is, subsequent to the Finance Act, 2007, binding on the Assessing Officer. Thus, it becomes all the more important to clarify the extent of the Transfer Pricing Officer's authority in this case, which is to determining the arm's length price for internati…

M/S. Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd., 345 ITR 241 (Del), CIT v. Reebok India Co. Ltd., 374 ITR 118 (Del), CIT v. Lumax Industries Ltd. (ITA No.102/2014) and CIT v. Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd., 367 ITR 730. (8) The last reason assigned by the TPO is that there was no necessity of paying such fees. This issue was also considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case cited supra wherein it was held it was beyond the domain of the TPO to question the necessity of expenditure. Hence it cannot be a relevant consideration for determining the ALP of…

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

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

ITA 123/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2012-13 Bright Point India Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 20, G-9, Block B-1, New Delhi. Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Vs. Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Gulati, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 253(1)Section 92C

…need not be proved :- a. Knorr Bremse vs. ACIT, 380 ITR 307. b. E.I. DuPont India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2016) 72 taxmann.com 215. 10 c. Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 374 ITR 118. d. CIT vs. Cushman and Wakefield India (P.) Ltd., 367 ITR 730. e. Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT, (2011) 13 taxmann.com 82. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India reported in (2016) 75 taxmann.com 268, he submitted that the receipt of service is established on balance of probabilities and the agreement for services may be oral or…

M/S. Honda Motor India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5847/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChotraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…the facts that the TPO determined Nil ALP of the international transaction of payment of Royalty, which has been adopted by the AO as such, without any further examination. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) read along with (2015) 277 CTR 368 (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 domai…

Bmw India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1406/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Bmw India Private Ltd. Vs. Dcit 7Th Floor, Tower-B, Building Circle-1(1) No. 8, Dlf Cyber City, Phase Gurgaon Ii, Gurgaon Pan:Aabcb7140C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv Department By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2015 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144 C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92B(1)Section 92F

…r contending that the transfer pricing addition on this score be deleted. This argument was countered by the ld. DR by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Knorr Bremse (supra) and CIT VS. Cushman Wakefield India (P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Delhi) read along with (2015) 277 CTR 368 (Del). 26. We have gone through the facts of the present case in the light of the judgments cited by both the sides. In our considered opinion, the reliance of the ld. AR on the decisions in his support, is not appropriate. In CIT vs. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd (Bom) (supra), the assessee sold its `Imaging bu…

M/S. at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2538/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N C Swain CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36

…TR 241 (Delhi) (Refer Para 10 on Page no. 141 to 143 of the Case Law Compendium) Hive Communication Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.306/2011) - (Refer Para 7 on Page no. 205 of the Case Law Compendium) - Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cushman and Wakefield (India) P. Ltd. (269 CTR 16) (Del.) - (Refer Para 36 on Page no. 90 and 91 of the Case Law Compendium) The Appellant submits that it is settled legal position in 2.19 law that the revenue authorities cannot challenge the commercial expediency / wisdom of the Appellant. Thus the challenge of the TPO/DRP questioning the wisdom of the Appellant is unjustified and not tenable in…

M/S Akzo Nobel India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 531/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Singh & Shri Manoneet Dalal (AR)For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

…and has been ruled out in various adjudications like EKL Appliances Limited [(2012) 209 Taxman 200 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, that the commercial expediency is not be questioned by the tax authorities. 8. In CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. 367 ITR 730(Del), 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 ITA Nos.531&335/Kol/2014-M/s. Akzo Nobel India Limited A.Y.2009-10 5 amounts claimed by the AEs, has to perforce be tested under the various methods prescribed un…

DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Akzo Nobel India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 335/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Singh & Shri Manoneet Dalal (AR)For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

…and has been ruled out in various adjudications like EKL Appliances Limited [(2012) 209 Taxman 200 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, that the commercial expediency is not be questioned by the tax authorities. 8. In CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. 367 ITR 730(Del), 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 ITA Nos.531&335/Kol/2014-M/s. Akzo Nobel India Limited A.Y.2009-10 5 amounts claimed by the AEs, has to perforce be tested under the various methods prescribed un…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2166/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 28.02.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 28Section 32Section 80HSection 90C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 DCIT, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACC0034F Assessee by : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CA Revenue by : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 28.02.2011 of ld. CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have bee…