CIT v. Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P.) Ltd.

354 ITR 586High Court2013#17729 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P.) Ltd.

M/S. Shindengen India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2514/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 283/2, Bommasandra, The Deputy Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Jigani Industrial Area, Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aarcs8947E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shashi M Kapila, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 92C

…of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) after considering various decisions of the Tribunal and the judgment of division bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P.) Ltd. reported as 354 ITR 586 concluded as under: “44. a. The mere fact that an entity makes high/extremely high profits/losses does not, ipso facto, lead to its exclusion from the list of comparables for the purposes of determination of ALP. In such circumstances, an enquiry under Rule 108(3) ought to be carried out, to determine as to whether the material differences betwee…

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

…of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) after considering various decisions of the Tribunal and the judgment of division bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P.) Ltd. reported as 354 ITR 586 concluded as under: “44. a. The mere fact that an entity makes high/extremely high profits/losses does not, ipso facto, lead to its exclusion from the list of comparables for the purposes of determination of ALP. In such circumstances, an enquiry under Rule 108(3) ought to be carried out, to determine as to whether the material differences betwee…

DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ankit Metal & Power Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1493/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…rice so determined or the arithmetic mean, then the actual price taken shall be the arm’s length price. For the aforesaid proposition the Ld. AR relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 586 (Delhi), wherein it was held that: “From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that if one profit level indicator of a comparable, out of a set of comparables, is lower than the profit level indicator of the taxpayer, then the transaction reported by the taxpayer is at an arm's length price. The proviso to…

M/S.Softtek India Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT- Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1747/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 92ASection 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 1747/Bang/2016 Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s. Softek India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of (Previously known as M/s. Systech Income-tax, Integrators India Pvt. Ltd.), Circle-6(1)(2), Ozone Manay Tech Park, Bangalore. 2nd Floor, # 56/18 & 55/9, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore – 560 068. PAN: AAICS 1151K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Chythanya K.K., Advocate Respondent by : Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 16.03.2017 Da…

M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 440/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Shri Gautam SwarupFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…aw applicable in India, courts may consider precedents in that regard; however those are only of 19 persuasive value’. In reaching this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court took note of its earlier judgment in CIT VS. Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 586 (Delhi), wherein it has been laid down that : `In the present case, there are specific provisions of sub- rules (2) and (3) of Rule 10B of the said Rules as also of the first proviso to section 92C(2) of the said Act which apply. Therefore, the question of applying OECD guidelines does not arise at all.’ These judgments delineate that the provis…

CIT v. Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P.) Ltd. (354 ITR 586) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax