Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurgaon
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 6870/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.71, Sector-32, Circle-3(1), Institutional Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri S.S. Tomar & Shri Ankit Shahni, Advocates Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhalry, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th October, 2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Belongs To Nikon Group Of Cases Which Is Involved In A Broad Spectrum Of Business Centred On Precision Equipment, Imaging Products, Instruments & Other Business. The Activities Of The Nikon Group Are Carried Out Through The Following Divisions:- I) Precision Equipment Business, Ii) Imaging Products Business, Iii) Instruments Business, Iv) Other Businesses. 3. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.66,47,37,700/-. The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S 92Ca(1) Of The It Act To Determine The Arm’S Length Price Of The International Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Aes During The F.Y. 2013-14. The Tpo, During The Course Of Tp Assessment Proceedings Observed That The Assessee Has Entered Into The Following International Transactions During The Year:- No. Nature Of Transaction Value (Inr) Method Applied 1. Purchase Of Goods, Promotional & 6,571,207,639 Rpm Other Supplies 2 Purchase Of Fixed Assets 7,049,548 Tnmm 3 Service Income 30,717,853 Tnmm 4 Warranty Reimbursements Received 69,937,244 Cup 5. Cost Reimbursements Received 2,619,750 Cup 6 Cost Reimbursements Paid 5,628,706 Cup
For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhalry, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C
…to disagree, particularly since it relies upon a decision of the Madras High Court in CED vs. R. Brahadeeswaran (1986) 57 CTR (Mad) 162 : (1987) 163 ITR 680 (Mad), which in turn relies upon three decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC), Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC) and CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC), we answer the question of law in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and 15 remand the matter to the file of the AO to determine the claim of the assessee on merits. 21. In view of the decisio…
