CIT v. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd.

276 CTR 484High Court2015#17559 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Issues it is cited on

resale price methodcost plus methodfunctional analysisfar analysisrelated party transactionsection 92ca(1)tested partytransactional net margin methodcup methodintangible assetscomparable companiesmost appropriate method

Judgments citing CIT v. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd.

DENTSPLY INDIA PVT LTD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 752/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 254

…M/s Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 852 of 2015 (Delhi High Court) - para 5A; b) ITO v. L'oreal India (P.) Ltd. IT Appeal No. 5423 (MUM.) OF 2009 – para 19 which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd. [2015] 276 CTR 484 (Bombay) - para 7; c) Nokia India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT IT Appeal Nos.178 & 242 (DELHI) OF 2010 - para 10; d) DCIT v. M/s. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2140/Del/2011 & ITA No. 1323/Del/2012 - para 16 and 17. g. The fact that, instead of TNMM the RPM is the MAM, was also ignored by the Ld. TPO/ AO/ CIT (A). It is pertinent to note that the CIT…

DENTSPLY INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4195/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 254

…M/s Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 852 of 2015 (Delhi High Court) - para 5A; b) ITO v. L'oreal India (P.) Ltd. IT Appeal No. 5423 (MUM.) OF 2009 – para 19 which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd. [2015] 276 CTR 484 (Bombay) - para 7; c) Nokia India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT IT Appeal Nos.178 & 242 (DELHI) OF 2010 - para 10; d) DCIT v. M/s. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2140/Del/2011 & ITA No. 1323/Del/2012 - para 16 and 17. g. The fact that, instead of TNMM the RPM is the MAM, was also ignored by the Ld. TPO/ AO/ CIT (A). It is pertinent to note that the CIT…

DENTSPLY INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1682/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 254

…M/s Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 852 of 2015 (Delhi High Court) - para 5A; b) ITO v. L'oreal India (P.) Ltd. IT Appeal No. 5423 (MUM.) OF 2009 – para 19 which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd. [2015] 276 CTR 484 (Bombay) - para 7; c) Nokia India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT IT Appeal Nos.178 & 242 (DELHI) OF 2010 - para 10; d) DCIT v. M/s. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2140/Del/2011 & ITA No. 1323/Del/2012 - para 16 and 17. g. The fact that, instead of TNMM the RPM is the MAM, was also ignored by the Ld. TPO/ AO/ CIT (A). It is pertinent to note that the CIT…

MTU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1744/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mtu India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 159/1, Tathawade, Circle-14, Pune Pune-Mumbai Highway, Pune – 411033 Pan : Aabcd2233N Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…Rule 10B(1)(b), dealing with the determination of the ALP under the RPM, is founded on the premise that the property purchased from an AE is resold. The Hon’ble 23 MTU India Private Limited jurisdictional High court in CIT Vs. L’oreal India (P) Ltd. (2015) 276 CTR 484 (Bom.) has held that the RPM is the most appropriate method when goods purchased from an AE are resold as such without any further processing. 23. It is noticed that when the assessee put forth the contention before the TPO for using the RPM as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the Trading of spare parts segment, the TPO rejected t…

GREAVES TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154

…n which CPM has been accepted by the Revenue as most appropriate method for determining ALP. Therefore, CPM should be accepted by the Revenue. He also relied on the following case laws, which are placed in the paper book : (i). CIT vs. L’oreal India P. Ltd., 276 CTR 484 (Bom) After having perused the relevant part of the order passed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal on this question, we are in agreement with Mr. Pardiwalla that the Tribunal did not commit any error of law apparent on the face of the record nor can the findings can be said to be perverse. The Tribunal has found that the TPO has passed an ord…

CIT v. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd. (276 CTR 484) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax