CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.

345 ITR 241High Court2012#172 most cited

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.

422

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 370,744 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. · Section 92CA · outstanding receivables · interest on outstanding receivables · TPO jurisdiction · business decision · royalty payments · arm's length price · associated enterprise benefit · pattern of delay · intra-group services

Also reported as

24 Taxmann.com 199209 Taxmann 200250 CTR 264

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 92CASection 144BSection 92CSection 234CSection 234D
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

intra group servicesinterest on outstanding receivablescup methodtested partyfar analysisworking capital adjustmentsection 92bmost appropriate methodbenchmarking analysistransactional net margin methodcomparable companiesassociated enterprises

Judgments citing CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.

Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 804/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.330/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Nike India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of No.701, The Millenia, Tower-B Income-tax Murphy Road, Ulsoor Circle-5(1)(2) Vs. Bangalore-560 008 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCN9612K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 804/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nike India Private Limited…

Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 330/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.330/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Nike India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of No.701, The Millenia, Tower-B Income-tax Murphy Road, Ulsoor Circle-5(1)(2) Vs. Bangalore-560 008 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCN9612K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 804/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nike India Private Limited…

Danisco India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2846/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2846/Del/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2009-10 Danisco India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Tower C, Dlf Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacd8906D. Vs The Dcit, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-10(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Harpreet Ajmani, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 144C(4)Section 92C

…he claim of the assessee. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Ltd. [2018] 90 taxmann.com 125 (Pune-Trib.). The Ld.AR for the assessee also relied on CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) wherein it was held that benchmarking of cost to cost reimbursement was not within TPO’s jurisdiction, while calculating Arm's Length Price u/s 92CA of the Act. 17. The Ld. DR for the Revenue placed heavy reliance on the orders of the TPO and made special reference to paras 9 to 11 of the TPO’s order. The Ld.DR for the Revenue stresse…

M/S. Lucky Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 771/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

For Appellant: Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs DCIT, UG-28, Som Dutt Chambers-II, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAAFL1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.11.2013 of the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi relating to ass…

Vedanta Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

ITA 12/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153

…e construed to mean that the services were not received. 14. In so far as the benefits received by the assessee is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of EKL Appliances 345 ITR 241 wherein it has been held that benefits shall be considered from the perspective of the taxpayer. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that it is incorrect to segregate management consultancy fee as a separate class of transaction and is clearly in violation of law as was laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in th…

Global Logic India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7621/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain &For Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Global Logic India Ltd., Vs DCIT, 207, Gupta Arcade, Circle-10(1), Circle-12(1), LSC Plot No.5, New Delhi. Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Extension, New Delhi. PAN: AABCI2526F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Jain & Shri Abhishek Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Surenderpal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 01.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement : .09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order…

Commvault Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Commvault Systems Dcit, Circle 1(2) (India) Private Limited Vs. Hyderabad 5Th Floor, Plot No.39, Phase Ii Block A, Ananth Info Park Hitech City, Madhapur Hyderabad Pan: Aaccc3708L (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ajeet Tolani Asessee By: Revenue By: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2020 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2012-13 Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Software Development Services & Unified Data Storage Solutions, E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 11.10.2012 Admitting Total Income Of

For Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 92(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI, Judicial Member AND Shri D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Commvault Systems DCIT, Circle 1(2) (India) Private Limited Vs. Hyderabad 5th floor, Plot no.39, Phase II Block A, Ananth Info Park Hitech City, Madhapur Hyderabad PAN: AACCC3708L (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ajeet Tolani Asessee by: Revenue by: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date of hearing: 01/09/2020 Date of pronouncement: 04/09/2020 ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This is an appeal filed by th…

Essar Power Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- RG - 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5450/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Essar Power Limited, Vs. A.C.I.T., Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Range-6(2)(2), Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aaace 0895 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 25/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per: R.C. Sharma, A.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1(Wz), Mumbai (In Short, The Drp) Dated 24/07/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15 U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') Has Erred In Completing The Assessment Of Appellant At Inr 1,43,93,58,982 /- (As Against Returned Loss Of Inr (64,80,75,116) Vide Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') After Considering The Adjustments Made By Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In His Order Passed Under Section 92Ca(3) Of The Act & Subsequently Confirmed By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'). Essar Power Limited Vs Acit Grounds Relating To Transfer Pricing Matters: 2. The Tpo/Ao/Drp Erred In Making An Adjustment Of Rs.5,22,146/- For Interest On Outstanding Receivables From Essar Africa Holding Ltd & Considering The Same As A Separate International Transaction & Charging Notional Interest.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92E

…and the face value of shares does not affect the actual benefits of the assessee, the percentage of ownership is the only material factor- which remains at 100% pre new allotment as also post new allotment. In the case of CIT Vs EKL Appliances Limited *(2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del)+, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has, though in a very different context and which is materially different from a situation in which the payment is made for subscription of share capital- as in this case, held that recharacterization of a transaction is possible in only two situations – i.e. (i) where the economic substance of a transaction diffe…

Meghmani Organics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2204/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…der activity-as is the uncontroverted position on the facts of this case, does not amount to a service in which respect of which arm's length adjustment can be done. 42. As observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241/209 Taxman 200/24 taxmann.com 199 (Delhi) = 2012-TII-01-HC-DEL-TP, a re- characterization of a transaction is indeed permissible, inter alia, in a situation "(i) where the economic substance of a transaction differs from its form and (ii) where the form and substance of the transaction are the same but arrangements made in relation to the transac…

Value Labs LLP (Formerly Value Labs), Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1910/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 145Section 156Section 271ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…s comparables, 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) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi). 12. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any error in the impugned order of the ITAT giving rise to any substantial question of law for determination. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” 15. So, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble High Court in Pr. CIT-V vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view…

Value Labs LLP (Formerly Value Labs), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1909/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Mr. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 145Section 156Section 271ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…s comparables, 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) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi). 12. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any error in the impugned order of the ITAT giving rise to any substantial question of law for determination. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” 15. So, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble High Court in Pr. CIT-V vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view…

M/S Motherson Sumi Infotech & Designs Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6757/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.6757/Del/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2011-12 M/S Motherson Sumi Infotech& Designs Ltd., F-7, Block-B-1, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccm3199B Vs The Dcit, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-17(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khimta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…s comparables, 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) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi). 12. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any error in the impugned order of the ITAT giving rise to any substantial question of law for determination. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” 15. So, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble High Court in Pr. CIT-V vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view…

Voltas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6612/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Voltas Limited Asst. Cit Range-8(3)(2) Voltas House-A, 4Th Floor, Vs. Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai 400 033 Pan No. Aaacv2809D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-8(3)(2) Voltas Limited R. No.615, 6Th Floor, Vs. Voltas House-A, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400 033 Pan No. Aaacv2809 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Uodal Raj Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…P a g e | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR(VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Voltas Limited Asst. CIT Range-8(3)(2) Voltas House-A, 4th Floor, Vs. Room No. 615, 6th Floor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai 400 033 PAN No. AAACV2809D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT-8(3)(2) Voltas Limited R. No.615, 6th Floor, Vs. Voltas House-A, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400…

Dhr Holding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1758/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhr Holding India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Corporate Circle – 7 (1) Tower-23, Rajendra Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110008 Pan No.Aaccd6672N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 DHR Holding India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 5th Floor, Aggarwal Corporate Circle – 7 (1) Tower-23, Rajendra Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110008 PAN No.AACCD6672N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.01.2016 of the AO passed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s 144 C of the IT Act 1961 for the A.Y. 2011-12.…

M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 625/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…oyalties are at arm’s length. Considering these facts the proposed disallowance of royalty in respect of Mincream and Robinson Burley does not appear to be justified and proper. For that we rely on the following judgments: (i). CIT V EKL Appliances Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 241(Delhi-HC) “15. It seems to us that the decision taken by the Tribunal is the right decision. The TPO applied the CUP method while examining the payment of brand fee/ royalty. The CUP method which in its expanded form is known as “comparable uncontrolled price” method is provided for in Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It is one of t…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…oyalties are at arm’s length. Considering these facts the proposed disallowance of royalty in respect of Mincream and Robinson Burley does not appear to be justified and proper. For that we rely on the following judgments: (i). CIT V EKL Appliances Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 241(Delhi-HC) “15. It seems to us that the decision taken by the Tribunal is the right decision. The TPO applied the CUP method while examining the payment of brand fee/ royalty. The CUP method which in its expanded form is known as “comparable uncontrolled price” method is provided for in Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It is one of t…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 529/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…oyalties are at arm’s length. Considering these facts the proposed disallowance of royalty in respect of Mincream and Robinson Burley does not appear to be justified and proper. For that we rely on the following judgments: (i). CIT V EKL Appliances Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 241(Delhi-HC) “15. It seems to us that the decision taken by the Tribunal is the right decision. The TPO applied the CUP method while examining the payment of brand fee/ royalty. The CUP method which in its expanded form is known as “comparable uncontrolled price” method is provided for in Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It is one of t…

Reckitt Denckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…oyalties are at arm’s length. Considering these facts the proposed disallowance of royalty in respect of Mincream and Robinson Burley does not appear to be justified and proper. For that we rely on the following judgments: (i). CIT V EKL Appliances Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 241(Delhi-HC) “15. It seems to us that the decision taken by the Tribunal is the right decision. The TPO applied the CUP method while examining the payment of brand fee/ royalty. The CUP method which in its expanded form is known as “comparable uncontrolled price” method is provided for in Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It is one of t…

Cargil India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3060/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 251(1)(c)Section 32Section 92C

…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 ITA No.3060/Del./2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/s. Cargill India Private Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 5 (2), 111, Rectangle I, Saket District Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. (PAN : AAACC3269J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri S. Chakarborty, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 03.02.2020 Date of Order : 18.05.2020 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, M/s.…

Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.10 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7371/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Essar Shipping Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T.-5(1)(2), 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. Mumbai-400034. Pan/Gir No.Aacce 3707 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115VSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…tary evidence. The TPO did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held that it was an arrangement as per S. 92F(v) of the Act between EOSL and assessee. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. EKL Appliances (345 ITR 241) and CIT v. Abhinandan Investment (ITA No: 130 of 2001 dated 19.11.2015). He further held that the assessee has not received dividend @ 1% on investments which it should have received. The ld. AR has further submitted that the TPO cannot recharacterise the transaction without bringing any material on record. In order to support the said conte…