What is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. authority for?

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

How many judgments cite CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.?

422 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C(13), Section 234B, Section 92CA, Section 144B, Section 92C.

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241)

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 9205/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

…any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and re-characterised the transaction. This was clearly impermissible in law as explained by this court in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 209 Taxman 200/345 ITR 241/345 ITR 241 (Delhi).” 16.10. Thus, it is seen that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed iner-alia that in order to justify adjustments on the issue of receivables, the TPO has to establish a pattern wherein, the arrangement reflects an international transaction intended to benefit the associated enterprise in some way. Even though in th…

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1575/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

…any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and re-characterised the transaction. This was clearly impermissible in law as explained by this court in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 209 Тахтап 200/345 ITR 241/345 ITR 241 (Delhi).” 16. 10. Thus, it is seen that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed iner-alia that in order to justify adjustments on the issue of receivables, the TPO has to establish a pattern wherein, the arrangement reflects an international transaction intended to benefit the associated enterprise in some way. Even though in this…

DCIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Benetton India Private Limited., Gurgaon

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

ITA 1846/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), B-25, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacd1013F Benetton India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-25, Gurgaon, Haryana Circle-4(2), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacd1013F

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Darm Veer Singh, CIT DR

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Vs. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), B-25, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACD1013F Benetton India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, B-25, Gurgaon, Haryana Circle-4(2), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACD1013F Assessee by : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Smt Mansvini Bajpai, Adv Revenue by: Shri Darm Veer Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 02/04/2026 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA…

Benetton India Private Limited, Gurugram vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1012/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), B-25, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacd1013F Benetton India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-25, Gurgaon, Haryana Circle-4(2), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacd1013F

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Darm Veer Singh, CIT DR

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Vs. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), B-25, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACD1013F Benetton India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, B-25, Gurgaon, Haryana Circle-4(2), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACD1013F Assessee by : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Smt Mansvini Bajpai, Adv Revenue by: Shri Darm Veer Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 02/04/2026 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thhyssenkrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA 3015/Del/2017 is

ITA 3658/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaltk Elevator Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), Thyssenkrupp Elevator C. R. Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Tk Elevator Private Limited Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), (Earlier Known As Room No. 192A C. R. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv& Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 92C

…he payment by the assessee as Corporate Mark Fee, not permissible under the provisions of section 92CA of the Act. 3.3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 241 relied upon by the assessee on similar issue, squarely applicable on facts of the assessee's case. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D. That the appeal is within time as the order of learned CIT(A) was received on 3rd April 2017.” ITA No. 3658/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2011-12) (Revenue…

Thyssenkrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA 3015/Del/2017 is

ITA 3015/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaltk Elevator Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), Thyssenkrupp Elevator C. R. Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Tk Elevator Private Limited Income Tax, Circle- 25(1), (Earlier Known As Room No. 192A C. R. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Building, New Delhi (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. 429, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi Pan: Aabct6921F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv& Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 234ASection 92C

…he payment by the assessee as Corporate Mark Fee, not permissible under the provisions of section 92CA of the Act. 3.3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 241 relied upon by the assessee on similar issue, squarely applicable on facts of the assessee's case. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D. That the appeal is within time as the order of learned CIT(A) was received on 3rd April 2017.” ITA No. 3658/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2011-12) (Revenue…

Zydus Lifesciences Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 392/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, Shri Ajit KumarFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR

Section 153(4)Section 153CSection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…ave incurred a particular expense or not. A business enterprise incurs the expenditure on the basis of what is commercially expedient and what is not commercially expedient. As held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [(2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del)] "Even Rule 10B(l)(a) does not authorize disallowance of any expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same". The very foundation of the action of the TPO is thus devoid of legally sustainable merits. We have also noted that there is no mark up in the reimbursement of expenses, and,…

Swatch Group (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), C.R. Building

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

ITA 5929/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22] Swatch Group (India) Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, 4Th Floor, Rectangle-I, Plot No. D- Vs Circle 22(2), 4, Saket District Centre, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi, New Delhi-110017. 110002. Pan- Aafcs7516R Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…e deduced the existence of an international transaction. It then added back the excess expenditure as the transfer pricing 'adjustment'. The Hon'ble High Court highlighted that this runs counter to legal position explained in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del), which required a TPO "to examine the 'international transaction' as he actually finds the same." Further, it was also held in the Maruti Suzuki Ruling that since BLT has been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson both for forming the base and determining if there is an international transaction and also for purpos…

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1789/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

…inging on record any comparable uncontrolled transaction. Such an approach is contrary to Rule 10B(1)(a), which mandates the use of reliable comparable data. 45.2 It is also a settled law, as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), that the TPO cannot question the commercial expediency of expenditure incurred by the assessee. The only requirement is to examine whether the transaction is genuine and whether the payment is supported by evidence. As such, by determining the ALP at NIL on the ground that no tangible benefit accrued, the TPO and DRP have travelled beyond their…

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

…r, accrual of benefit to the assessee or the commercial expediency of any expenditure incurred by the assessee cannot be the basis for disallowing the same, as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s EKL Appliances Ltd., reported in [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del.). 56. We further find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Lever India Exports Ltd., reported in [2017] 246 Taxmann 133 (Bombay), observed as follows: "7. We note that the Tribunal has recorded the fact that the respondent assessee has launched new products which involved huge advertisement expenditure. The sharing of such…

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

…r, accrual of benefit to the assessee or the commercial expediency of any expenditure incurred by the assessee cannot be the basis for disallowing the same, as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s EKL Appliances Ltd., reported in [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del.). 56. We further find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Lever India Exports Ltd., reported in [2017] 246 Taxmann 133 (Bombay), observed as follows: "7. We note that the Tribunal has recorded the fact that the respondent assessee has launched new products which involved huge advertisement expenditure. The sharing of such…

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA 386/2016 and followed in subsequent AYs iii) PCIT vs. R.A.K. Ceramics India Ltd. (2017) 293 CTR 361 (Andhra Pradesh) iv) CIT vs. Lever India Exports Ltd. (2017) 292 CTR 393 (Bombay) v) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) vi) Marathon Electric India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) ITA No. 5257/Del/2011 (Mum.Tri.) vii) DCIT vs. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum. Tri.) viii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 133 taxmann.com 500 (Ahd. Tri.) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following cases wherein it was categorically held that the TPO cannot hold…

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA 386/2016 and followed in subsequent AYs iii) PCIT vs. R.A.K. Ceramics India Ltd. (2017) 293 CTR 361 (Andhra Pradesh) iv) CIT vs. Lever India Exports Ltd. (2017) 292 CTR 393 (Bombay) v) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) vi) Marathon Electric India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) ITA No. 5257/Del/2011 (Mum.Tri.) vii) DCIT vs. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum. Tri.) viii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 133 taxmann.com 500 (Ahd. Tri.) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following cases wherein it was categorically held that the TPO cannot hold…

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle(Int.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA 386/2016 and followed in subsequent AYs iii) PCIT vs. R.A.K. Ceramics India Ltd. (2017) 293 CTR 361 (Andhra Pradesh) iv) CIT vs. Lever India Exports Ltd. (2017) 292 CTR 393 (Bombay) v) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) vi) Marathon Electric India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) ITA No. 5257/Del/2011 (Mum.Tri.) vii) DCIT vs. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum. Tri.) viii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 133 taxmann.com 500 (Ahd. Tri.) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following cases wherein it was categorically held that the TPO cannot hold…

Andhra Paper Limited, Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.349/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2020-21) Vs. Acit – Circle -1 Andhra Paper Limited 14-6-9, Admin Office Veerabhadrapuram Kateru Road Rajahmundry-533101 Sri Ramnagar S.O. (Rajahmundry) Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry (Urban) East Godavari – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaact8849D]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.349/VIZ/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2020-21) Vs. ACIT – CIRCLE -1 Andhra Paper Limited 14-6-9, Admin Office Veerabhadrapuram Kateru Road Rajahmundry-533101 Sri Ramnagar S.O. (Rajahmundry) Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry (Urban) East Godavari – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: AAAC…

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)

…ssociated Enterprise ("AE"); 2.2 exceeding its jurisdiction by applying the cost benefit analysis in determining ALP of transition support services and erred in not following precedent laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. EKL Appliances [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi); 2.3 not following the principle of consistency by failing to appreciate that transfer pricing adjustment qua transition support services is covered in favour of the Appellant by the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the Appellant's own case for earlier AYs (AY 2015-16 and 2016-17): 2.4 disregarding the fact that the disallowance of su…

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, . Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR

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

…ty payments made for "Essar" is purely a business decision of the Assessee which cannot be questioned by the learned TPO. Reliance in this regard is placed on: a. Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 475/2012] b. CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 4.6 The ld DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 4.7 Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that ITAT Ahmedabad Bench had considered the similar issues and decided the similar issues under consideration as under: “30. A perusal of the case record indicates that the assessee had paid b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ummarized as under. (a) It was submitted in behalf of the Assessee that: - the determination of arm’s length price (ALP) of the Royalty transaction at ‘NIL’ was erroneous in the light of the following judicial precedence (i) CIT Vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi); and (ii) LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2011) 48 SOT 269 (Vishakhapatnam). - the use of Vodafone Brand has resulted in the financial growth including increase in footprint in the market and thus, the ALP at zero by the TPO is erroneous. - The Ld. Counsel has taken the objection that this comparable proposed by the TPO in the Reman…

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2346/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

…e TPO is unjustified. 39.3 The assessee further argued that the “benefit test” applied by the TPO is contrary to law, since jurisprudence from the Hon’ble Supreme Court (S.A. Builders, 158 Taxman 74) and various High Courts (e.g., CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd., 345 ITR 241) has held that commercial expediency of incurring an expenditure lies within the domain of the businessman and cannot be questioned by tax authorities. The role of the TPO is confined to determining whether the transaction has been entered into at arm’s length, and not to substitute the business judgment of the assessee. In this regard, the asses…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8260/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. Dcit, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7Th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana Pin: 122 001 Aabch1376E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra and AnkurFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. DCIT, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana PIN: 122 001 AABCH1376E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri Deepak Chopra and Ankur Goyal, Advs. (Virtual) Department by: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing: 31.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 10.10.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee’s appe…

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.

What is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

DCIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Benetton India Private Limited., Gurgaon

Benetton India Private Limited, Gurugram vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thhyssenkrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Thyssenkrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Zydus Lifesciences Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Swatch Group (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), C.R. Building

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle(Int.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

Andhra Paper Limited, Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, . Circle-26(2), New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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