CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.

143 ITD 195Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#8754 most cited

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

The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot disallow expenditure solely because no detailed information was provided regarding the technical aspects of a patent, especially when the assessee has received substantial benefits from the use of licensed intangible property.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. · 143 ITD 195 · ITAT · transfer pricing order · intra group services · royalty · arms length price · comparable uncontrolled price method · use of equipment · related party transaction · intangible assets

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

use of equipmentintra group servicescomparable uncontrolled price methodtransfer pricing orderfar analysisrelated party transactionright to receivetested partymliarms length pricecup methodintangible assets

Judgments citing CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 889/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…hmark the ALP. In support of, he relied upon the following judgments to canvass that ‘intra group services’ and ‘royalty’ cannot be determined at nil:- i) CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) ii) SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. v. DC1T, [2013] 143 ITD 195 (Mumbai - Trib) iii) McCann Erickson India P. Ltd. v. ACIT, 20 I 2-TlI-59-ITAT-DEL-TP, 24 Taxman 21. 22. Lastly, he submitted that benefit test is not a prescribed method for which he referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(2015) 374 ITR 118; and CIT vs. Cus…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 279/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…hmark the ALP. In support of, he relied upon the following judgments to canvass that ‘intra group services’ and ‘royalty’ cannot be determined at nil:- i) CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) ii) SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. v. DC1T, [2013] 143 ITD 195 (Mumbai - Trib) iii) McCann Erickson India P. Ltd. v. ACIT, 20 I 2-TlI-59-ITAT-DEL-TP, 24 Taxman 21. 22. Lastly, he submitted that benefit test is not a prescribed method for which he referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(2015) 374 ITR 118; and CIT vs. Cus…

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 253/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…hmark the ALP. In support of, he relied upon the following judgments to canvass that ‘intra group services’ and ‘royalty’ cannot be determined at nil:- i) CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) ii) SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. v. DC1T, [2013] 143 ITD 195 (Mumbai - Trib) iii) McCann Erickson India P. Ltd. v. ACIT, 20 I 2-TlI-59-ITAT-DEL-TP, 24 Taxman 21. 22. Lastly, he submitted that benefit test is not a prescribed method for which he referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(2015) 374 ITR 118; and CIT vs. Cus…

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 252/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…hmark the ALP. In support of, he relied upon the following judgments to canvass that ‘intra group services’ and ‘royalty’ cannot be determined at nil:- i) CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) ii) SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. v. DC1T, [2013] 143 ITD 195 (Mumbai - Trib) iii) McCann Erickson India P. Ltd. v. ACIT, 20 I 2-TlI-59-ITAT-DEL-TP, 24 Taxman 21. 22. Lastly, he submitted that benefit test is not a prescribed method for which he referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(2015) 374 ITR 118; and CIT vs. Cus…

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2209/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…hmark the ALP. In support of, he relied upon the following judgments to canvass that ‘intra group services’ and ‘royalty’ cannot be determined at nil:- i) CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) ii) SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. v. DC1T, [2013] 143 ITD 195 (Mumbai - Trib) iii) McCann Erickson India P. Ltd. v. ACIT, 20 I 2-TlI-59-ITAT-DEL-TP, 24 Taxman 21. 22. Lastly, he submitted that benefit test is not a prescribed method for which he referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(2015) 374 ITR 118; and CIT vs. Cus…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2025/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

…hmark the ALP. In support of, he relied upon the following judgments to canvass that ‘intra group services’ and ‘royalty’ cannot be determined at nil:- i) CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd, [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) ii) SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. v. DC1T, [2013] 143 ITD 195 (Mumbai - Trib) iii) McCann Erickson India P. Ltd. v. ACIT, 20 I 2-TlI-59-ITAT-DEL-TP, 24 Taxman 21. 22. Lastly, he submitted that benefit test is not a prescribed method for which he referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(2015) 374 ITR 118; and CIT vs. Cus…

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)

…(2012-TII-01-HC-DEL-TP) (Del-HC) • Lumax Industries Limited vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5252/Del/2011) Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.404 & 529/Kol/2015 ITA Nos. 625 & 518/Kol/2016 Assessment Years:2010-11 to 2011-12 • SC Enviro Agro India Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 143 ITD 195 (Mum-ITAT) We would like to humbly submit that it is beyond the scope of the powers of TPO to disallow the otherwise bona fide expenditure incurred by the assessee, only on the grounds that no detailed information has been filed with regard to technical aspects of the patent whose rights have been transferred to the assessee. We submit that RBIL…

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)

…(2012-TII-01-HC-DEL-TP) (Del-HC) • Lumax Industries Limited vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5252/Del/2011) Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.404 & 529/Kol/2015 ITA Nos. 625 & 518/Kol/2016 Assessment Years:2010-11 to 2011-12 • SC Enviro Agro India Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 143 ITD 195 (Mum-ITAT) We would like to humbly submit that it is beyond the scope of the powers of TPO to disallow the otherwise bona fide expenditure incurred by the assessee, only on the grounds that no detailed information has been filed with regard to technical aspects of the patent whose rights have been transferred to the assessee. We submit that RBIL…

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)

…(2012-TII-01-HC-DEL-TP) (Del-HC) • Lumax Industries Limited vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5252/Del/2011) Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.404 & 529/Kol/2015 ITA Nos. 625 & 518/Kol/2016 Assessment Years:2010-11 to 2011-12 • SC Enviro Agro India Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 143 ITD 195 (Mum-ITAT) We would like to humbly submit that it is beyond the scope of the powers of TPO to disallow the otherwise bona fide expenditure incurred by the assessee, only on the grounds that no detailed information has been filed with regard to technical aspects of the patent whose rights have been transferred to the assessee. We submit that RBIL…

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)

…(2012-TII-01-HC-DEL-TP) (Del-HC) • Lumax Industries Limited vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5252/Del/2011) Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.404 & 529/Kol/2015 ITA Nos. 625 & 518/Kol/2016 Assessment Years:2010-11 to 2011-12 • SC Enviro Agro India Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 143 ITD 195 (Mum-ITAT) We would like to humbly submit that it is beyond the scope of the powers of TPO to disallow the otherwise bona fide expenditure incurred by the assessee, only on the grounds that no detailed information has been filed with regard to technical aspects of the patent whose rights have been transferred to the assessee. We submit that RBIL…

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

…11] 13 traxmann.com 82/[2012] 53 SOT 173 (Mum.) ii. Ericsson India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 472 (Delhi) iii. AWB India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 4454 of 2011] (Delhi); iv. SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 127/143 ITD 195 (Mum. - Trib.) v. Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) vi. McCann Erickson India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 21 (Delhi) vii. DSM Anti-Infectives India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2014] 50 taxmann.com 239 (Chd. - Trib.) viii. TNS India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 128/[2015] 152 ITD 123…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Safran Engineering Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 451/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.451/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Ms.Neera Malhaotra, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…(Mum.) IT(TP)A No.451/Bang/2015 Page 12 of 23 ii. Ericsson India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 472 (Delhi) iii. AWB India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 4454 of 2011] (Delhi); iv. SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 127/143 ITD 195 (Mum. - Trib.) v. Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) vi. McCann Erickson India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 21 (Delhi) vii. DSM Anti-Infectives India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2014] 50 taxmann.com 239 (Chd. - Trib.) viii. TNS India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 128/[2015] 152 ITD 123…

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (143 ITD 195) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax