CIT v. Welspun Zucchi Textiles Ltd.

391 ITR 211High Court2017#5157 most cited

What is CIT v. Welspun Zucchi Textiles Ltd. authority for?

A company is not automatically excluded from comparability analysis under Rule 10B(2) solely because it incurred a loss in a particular year, though a loss may warrant further examination.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Welspun Zucchi Textiles Ltd. · Rule 10B(2) · comparability analysis · loss making comparables · transfer pricing · section 92C · DEPB benefit · operating revenue

Also reported as

292 CTR 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 10B(1)Section 10B(2)Section 10B(3)Section 10B(4)Section 142(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Welspun Zucchi Textiles Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Amber Point Technology India P. Ltd

In the result, appeals of assessee for both the years are partly allowed and appeals of Revenue in assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed and in assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 757/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावला, न्याययक सदस्य, एवं श्री अयिल चतुवेदी, लेखा सदस्य, के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.756 & 757/PUN/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(1), Pune. … बिाम / V/s. Amber Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd. DLF Building No. 8, Tower C, Ground floor, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-II, … प्रत्यथी / Respondent Gurgaon- 122 002. PAN : AAFCA0749Q आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.761…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Amber Point Technology India P. Ltd

In the result, appeals of assessee for both the years are partly allowed and appeals of Revenue in assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed and in assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 756/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावला, न्याययक सदस्य, एवं श्री अयिल चतुवेदी, लेखा सदस्य, के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.756 & 757/PUN/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Circle-1(1), Pune. … बिाम / V/s. Amber Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd. DLF Building No. 8, Tower C, Ground floor, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-II, … प्रत्यथी / Respondent Gurgaon- 122 002. PAN : AAFCA0749Q आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.761…

British Marine Plc-India Branch, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(3)(2)

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1908/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S British Marine Plc- Dcit(It)-1(3)(2) India Branch Mumbai. Vs. 903, ‘C’ Wing, 215, Antrium, Next To Courtyard, Marriot, A.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400065 Pan No. Aaaco6627Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jiger Saiya & Shri Darshan Dalal, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhenan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri Jiger Saiya &For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhenan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…d the Operating Profit of the M/s British Marine PLC India Branch 15 Uncontrolled Comparable Enterprises from comparable uncontrolled transactions is also worked out on similar basis. (iii) Loss making Comparables In CIT v. Welspun Zucchi Textiles Ltd. (2017) 391 ITR 211 at page 215-216 (Bom.), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that ‘Rule 10B(2) does not require exclusion of a company from comparability analysis only because it had suffered a loss in a particular year. However it must be clarified that in the facts of a particular case, a loss could be a symptom to enquire/examine whether it is on account of…