CIT v. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd.

381 ITR 413High Court2016#2451 most cited

What is CIT v. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Transfer pricing adjustments must be restricted to international transactions with associated enterprises and cannot be made at the entity level or in respect of transactions with unrelated parties.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. · 381 ITR 413 · Section 92C · Section 92CA · transfer pricing adjustment · entity level adjustment · associated enterprise · international transaction · arm's length price · unrelated parties

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(1)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92CA(1)

Issues it is cited on

transfer pricing adjustmentarm's length priceassociated enterpriseassociated enterprisestnmmsection 92section 92casection 92cinternational transactiondispute resolution paneltransferprescribed

Judgments citing CIT v. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Sodexo Food Solutions India P .Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5707/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5781/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Income Tax-13(2)(1) Private Limited बनाम/ 1Stfloor, Gemstar Commercial Complex Room No.146, 1St Floor Vs. Ramchandra Lane Extension Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5707/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-13(2)(1) बनाम/ 1Stfloor, Gemstar Commercial Complex Room No.146, 1St Floor Ramchandra Lane Extension Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rignesh Das, Ld. JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…ate Hon’ble Bombay High Court 381 ITR 404 Ltd 2. CIT Vs Firestone International Pvt. Hon’ble Bombay High Court 378 ITR 558 Ltd. 3. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Mumbai Tribunal 55 SOT 497 as Ltd. Vs ACIT approved by Bombay High Court in revenue’s appeal 381 ITR 413] 4. Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs ACIT Mumbai Tribunal 22 ITR(T) 737 as approved by Bombay High Court in revenue’s appeal 394 ITR 73] Respectfully following the same, we find no infirmity in the stand of Ld. CIT(A) in granting the benefit of proportionate adjustment to the assessee by holding that entity level TNMM could not be applied to all the tr…

Giesecke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5924/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-5924/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Giesecke & Devrient India vs DCIT Pvt. Ltd. Circle-12(1), Corporate Office, Plot #57, Central Revenue Building Sector-44 New Delhi Gurgaon PAN : AABCG4223D Assessee by Sh. Harpreet Ajmani, Adv., Sh. Rohan Khare, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 24.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 23.08.2018 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This present appeal by the assessee is preferred agains…

Deputy Commisisoner of Income-Tax vs. Wika Instruments India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 764/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…of appeal No.6 raised by the assessee is against transfer pricing adjustment made on entity level. 29. The plea of assessee before us is that the issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries India P. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom), wherein the transfer pricing adjustment, if any, has to be made vis-à-vis associated enterprises transactions and not on entity level. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to the order of TPO and pointed out that transactions with associated enterprises were to the tune of ₹ 16.04 crores, whereas the Assessing Of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Haldex India Ltd., Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1731/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar ChawareFor Respondent: Shri R.D. Onkar
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

…parison with uncontrolled comparables, proportionate adjustment is granted by Ld.CIT(A). Issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Thyssen Krupp Industries India P. Ltd. reported in 381 ITR 413” 10. We heard both the sides on the issue of restricting the computation of the TP adjustment in respect of international transactions of Rs.27.04 crores and not to the entire sales of Rs.45.83 crores involved in computation of the said adjustments. We have also considered the orders of the Revenue and the submissions of the assessee. We find…

Wika Instruments India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commisisoner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 760/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…of appeal No.6 raised by the assessee is against transfer pricing adjustment made on entity level. 29. The plea of assessee before us is that the issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries India P. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom), wherein the transfer pricing adjustment, if any, has to be made vis-à-vis associated enterprises transactions and not on entity level. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to the order of TPO and pointed out that transactions with associated enterprises were to the tune of ₹ 16.04 crores, whereas the Assessing Of…

Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Progressive Tools & Components Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs. Progressive Tools & Range-2, Components Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. 8/3A, Site-Iv, Indl. Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. Pan : Aachp2255L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Ramanjaneyulu, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. CIT, Vs. Progressive Tools & Range-2, Components Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. 8/3A, Site-IV, Indl. Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. PAN : AACHP2255L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Tarun Kumar, Advocates Department By : Shri Ramanjaneyulu, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10.03.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT…

Federal Mogul Automotive Products (India) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5881/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…pportunity of being heard. Our this view is fortified by a recent judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT VS. Keihin Panalfa Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 407 (Del). Similar view has been taken in CIT VS. Thyssen Krupp Industries India P. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom). 15. To sum up, we set aside the impugned order on the issue of addition towards transfer pricing adjustment and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for fresh determination of the ALP of the international transaction in consonance with our above observations/directions, after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 16 16…