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)

Greatship (India ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1287/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.6083/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Greatship (India) Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income- C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Vs. Tax-5(1)(1), Army & Navy Building, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan &

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…Mum/2014, dated 21.06.2019 (copy placed on record). Our attention was drawn by the ld. A.R to the relevant observations of the Tribunal, wherein by drawing support from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del) and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del), the Tribunal had observed that re-characterization of a transaction can be done by ITA No. 1287/Mum/2017& ITA No. 6083/Mum/2018 27 A.Ys.2012-13 & 2014-15 Greatship (India) Ltd., Vs. DCIT-5(1)(1) the revenue authorities only when the transactions are fo…

L'Oreal India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 130/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 130/मुं/2013 ("न.व. 2007-08) It(Tp)A No.130/Mum/2013(A.Y.2007-08) M/S. L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaacl0738K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 6(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

…rables taken by the respondent 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.” 7. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. reported as 345 ITR 241, after referring to OECD guidelines para 1.36 to 1.41 observed: “17. The significance of the aforesaid guidelines lies in the fact that they recognise that barring exceptional cases, the tax administration should not disregard the actual transaction or substitute other transactions for them and the examination of a controlled transaction should o…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7376/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92F

…omotion expenditure incurred as a transaction by itself when it has neither been identified as such by the assessee or legislatively recognised in the Explanation to section 92B runs counter to the legal position explained in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) which required a Transfer Pricing Officer 'to examine the "international transaction" as he actually finds the same'. In the present case, the mere fact that B&L, USA through B&L, South Asia, Inc. holds 99.9 per cent. of the share of the assessee will not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the mere increasing of the advertisement, mar…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…wing decisions, he submitted that in A.Y. 2006-07 or 2007-08, the prescribed method to calculate the ALP of the Royalty has not been applied:- (i) Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del). (ii) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd: 345 ITR 241 (Del). (iii) CA Computer Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 5420 and 542I/Mum/2006). (iv) CIT vs CA Computer Associates India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 20/2011). (v) CIT vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt Ltd. (ITA 475/ 2012) (vi) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT (ITA No.5140/Del/2011) (vii) Nimbus Communications Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No 2361/Mum…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…wing decisions, he submitted that in A.Y. 2006-07 or 2007-08, the prescribed method to calculate the ALP of the Royalty has not been applied:- (i) Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del). (ii) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd: 345 ITR 241 (Del). (iii) CA Computer Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 5420 and 542I/Mum/2006). (iv) CIT vs CA Computer Associates India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 20/2011). (v) CIT vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt Ltd. (ITA 475/ 2012) (vi) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT (ITA No.5140/Del/2011) (vii) Nimbus Communications Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No 2361/Mum…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…wing decisions, he submitted that in A.Y. 2006-07 or 2007-08, the prescribed method to calculate the ALP of the Royalty has not been applied:- (i) Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del). (ii) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd: 345 ITR 241 (Del). (iii) CA Computer Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 5420 and 542I/Mum/2006). (iv) CIT vs CA Computer Associates India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 20/2011). (v) CIT vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt Ltd. (ITA 475/ 2012) (vi) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT (ITA No.5140/Del/2011) (vii) Nimbus Communications Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No 2361/Mum…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…wing decisions, he submitted that in A.Y. 2006-07 or 2007-08, the prescribed method to calculate the ALP of the Royalty has not been applied:- (i) Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: 374 ITR 118 (Del). (ii) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd: 345 ITR 241 (Del). (iii) CA Computer Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 5420 and 542I/Mum/2006). (iv) CIT vs CA Computer Associates India Pvt Ltd (ITA No 20/2011). (v) CIT vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt Ltd. (ITA 475/ 2012) (vi) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT (ITA No.5140/Del/2011) (vii) Nimbus Communications Ltd vs ACIT (ITA No 2361/Mum…

Xl India Business Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6602/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Xl India Business Services Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., Ff-101, Special Range-9 First Floor, Sarines Sonia New Delhi Sadan, Building No. G-11, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi – 18 Pan No. Aaacx 0309 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Sunil Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2017 Of The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-9, New Delhi (‘Ao’) Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…ve distorted the picture and re- characterized the transaction which was clearly impermissible in law. To arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, Hon’ble High Court also referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi). The relevant observation of the High Court are as under: 8. “Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. By the impugned order dated 31th March 2015, the ITAT set aside the assessment order. The ITAT noted that the Assessee had undertaken working capital adjustment for the comparable companies selected in i…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Gillettee Diversified Operations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1698/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 250

…s comparables, any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and recharactersied the transaction. This was clearly impermissible in law as explained by this Court in CIT Vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) - 2012-TII-01 -HXC-Del- TP. 9. Ld. AR, however , submitted that this particular issue was raised before CIT(A) in this year; that it was demonstrated before Ld. CIT(A) that ALP margins of the assessee vs. comparable remain higher after the working capital adjustment; that the capital adjusted PLI of the comparable is 6.71% and when compar…

Gillettee Diversified Operations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1161/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 250

…s comparables, any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and recharactersied the transaction. This was clearly impermissible in law as explained by this Court in CIT Vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) - 2012-TII-01 -HXC-Del- TP. 9. Ld. AR, however , submitted that this particular issue was raised before CIT(A) in this year; that it was demonstrated before Ld. CIT(A) that ALP margins of the assessee vs. comparable remain higher after the working capital adjustment; that the capital adjusted PLI of the comparable is 6.71% and when compar…

The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1766/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…er 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 Vs EKL Appliances Ltd [(2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del)], 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 transaction, viewed in their totality, differ from those which woul…

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1757/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…er 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 Vs EKL Appliances Ltd [(2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del)], 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 transaction, viewed in their totality, differ from those which woul…

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2434/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 M/s. Himalaya Drug Company, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Makali, Tumkur Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 562 123. Circle 6(2), PAN: AADFT 3025B Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 24.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee directed against t…

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3071/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)

…of MSIL was found 'excessive' the Revenue deduced the existence of an international transaction. It then added back the excess expenditure as the transfer pricing 'adjustment'. 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." In other words the very existence of an international transaction cannot be a matter for inference or surmise." At para 76 of its order, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :- "76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa…

Fieldcore Service Solutions International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7692/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 4oSection 9Section 920(2)Section 920(3)Section 92BSection 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.” 6.4 We find that Hon’ble High Court has held that wherever working capital adjusted margin of comparables has been taken into consideration wh…

M/S. Barco Electronic Systems (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…see is already been factored in to account for the impact of delay in receivables and no adjustment on account of outstanding receivable is called for, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd reported in 345 ITR 241 and in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Kusum Healthcare (P) Ltd. (ITA No 765/2016) for the proposition that when the assessee is debt free company and no funds utilized in business therefore no adjustment of outstanding receivable is called for. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bechtel India (P) Ltd. (…

M/S. Safina Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(D.R)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

…He relied on the following judgments. • CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [ 1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) • Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) • Smt. Satish Bala Malhotra v. CIT [2017] 391 ITR 256 (Punjab 8s Haryana) • CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) • CIT v. Darashaw & Co. (P.) Ltd [2014] 226 Taxman 193 (Bombay) (MAG.) • CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 13 (Bombay) • CIT v. M. Ethurajan [2005] 273 ITR 95 (Madras) • CIT v. Aspentech India (P.) Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 25 (Delhi), • ADCIT v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 465 (Rajasthan) • CIT v. Da…

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2248/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 156

…of MSIL was found 'excessive' the Revenue deduced the existence of an international transaction. It then added back the excess expenditure as the transfer pricing 'adjustment'. 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." In other words the very existence of an international transaction cannot be a matter for inference or surmise." IT(TP)A No.2248/Bang/2016 M/.s. The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru Page 55 of 71 At para 76 of its order, the Hon'ble High Court…

M/S Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), 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 3321/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

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…

M/S.Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 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 739/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

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…

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.

Greatship (India ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

L'Oreal India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

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

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

Xl India Business Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Gillettee Diversified Operations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Gillettee Diversified Operations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1), Bengaluru

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

Fieldcore Service Solutions International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

M/S. Barco Electronic Systems (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S. Safina Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

M/S Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

M/S.Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore