CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd.?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (381 ITR 404), spanning 2017 to 2024.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 143(3), Section 144C(13), Section 271(1)(c), Section 92C(1), Section 92C(2).

381 ITR 404High Court2016#4217 most cited

What is CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. authority for?

The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot make adjustments to the entire segment of manufacturing activity. Adjustments can only be made to the extent of international transactions and only to the extent of arm's length price.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. · CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. · section 92C · section 92CA · transfer pricing adjustment · TPO · arms length price · international transaction · manufacturing segment

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 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

arms length price comparable companies most appropriate method arm's length price transfer pricing adjustment tnmm associated enterprise section 92 section 92ca section 92c international transaction transfer

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd.

IMS HEALTH ANALYTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 300/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani & Sri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

…x Mecano (India) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 124/265 Taxman 354/414 ITR 704 and in the case of CIT v. ThyssenKrupp Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016] 70 taxmann.com 329/381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 117/[2016] 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). 6.7 In any case we find that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y.2011-12 in Comm Vault Systems (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 350 (Hyd. - Trib.) wherein this Tribunal after examining the nature and terms of the distribution agreement had…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BUNGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4781/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Tara Jewels Exports P. Limited1. The principles laid down in the said decision have been followed consistently in later decisions such as in cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thyssen 1 (2016) 381 ITR 404 (Bom) Priya Soparkar 3 25 itxa 445-17-o Krupp Industries India P. Ltd.1 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd. 2. In the result, do not find any error in view of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed.” 9.1 Exactly similar matter has been decided in Income Tax Appeal No.445 of 2017 also by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in order…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BUNGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4780/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

COMMVAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 282/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 282/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Commvault Systems (India) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-1(1), [Pan : Aaccc3708L] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA-TP No. 282/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Commvault Systems (India) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-1(1), [PAN : AACCC3708L] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 10/04/2023…

THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1886/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shir M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethyssenkrupp Industries Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(2) India Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 154-C, Mittal Towers, Room No. 609, 15Th Floor, 210, Mumbai – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1947K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Pratik Podar.Ar Respondent By : Shri Samuel Pitta.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Order U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 23.12.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…with non-AE. This adjustment is beyond the scope and ambit of Chapter X of the Act. 4. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 1814 of 2013 (CIT v. Tara Jewels Exports Thyssenkrupp Industries Ind Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. (P) Ltd. [2016] 381 ITR 404 (Bom.) as well as by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Keilin Panalfa Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 11 of 2015, decided on 9th September, 2015]. 5. In the above view, as the provisions of the Act in respect of transfer pricing are self evident, Question No.(a) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6. Appeal…

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh (through virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 253

…me Court in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, therefore, direct to restrict the transfer pricing addition only in respect of transactions with Associated Enterprises.” 6 ITA 213 of 2022 – Vishay Components A.Y. 2017-18 7. The ld. Counsel submitted that identical facts and the business activities also appear for the relevant assessment 2017-18 in respect to the assessee. The ld.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE vs. FRANKE FABER INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal the Revenue is allowed and the cross

ITA 161/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. Franke Faber India Private Limited, Pune 1086/1 & 1086/2, Nagar Road, Village Sanaswadi, Taluka Shirur, Pune 412 208, Maharashtra Pan : Aaacf4002G Appellant Respondent

…ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels 7 And CO No.21/PUN/ 2022 Frank Faber India India Pvt. Ltd., Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, therefore, set aside the impugned order on this score and direct that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the extent of the international transactions. 11. To sum up, the impugned order on the issue of transfer pricing adjustment of the international transactions of Purchase of Raw Material, Purchase of tr…

RIETER INDIA PVT.LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 127/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)

…Court in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, therefore, set aside the impugned order on this score and direct that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the value of international transactions. 12 Rieter India Private Limited 10. To sum up, the impugned order on the issue of transfer pricing adjustment of the international transactions of `Import of ra…

DHL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7286/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledhl Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit – 9(3)(1) 201A, Silver Utopia, Room No. 215, Cardinal Gracias Road 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Chakala, Andheri (E) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400099 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6824A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat.CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92D

…tled position of law as had been so canvassed by the ld. A.R before us is concerned, we are persuaded to be in agreement with the same. In fact, we find that the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-8, Mumbai Vs. Tara Jewells Export (P) Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 404 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Thyssen Crup Industries India Pvt. ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom), had clearly observed, that in terms of Chapter X of the Act the TP adjustment is mandated only in respect of International transactions and not the transactions entered into by the assessee with independent unrelated parties. In DHL Logistics P Ltd, Mumbai. fact,…

MUBEA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 260/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.260/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…rt in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been espoused by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, ergo, direct to restrict the transfer pricing addition only to the extent of international transaction under consideration. 14. To sum up, we set-aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of AO/TPO for re-determining the ALP of the international transaction of `Purchase of raw material, sale of finished goods, spa…

M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 584/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle 9, Vs. M/S. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pa N: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp :

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…Court in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been espoused by the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, ergo, direct to restrict the transfer pricing addition only to the extent of international transactions in this segment. 29. To sum up, the transfer pricing addition made in the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO/TPO for re-computing the transfer pricing adjustment in the Manufacturing activit…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

ITA 537/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2453/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Khalumbre, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Chakan, Taluka-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…me Court in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been taken by the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, therefore, direct the AO/TPO to restrict the transfer pricing addition to the extent of international transactions under the segment of ‗Manufacturing activity‘. 12.1. The assessee has raised the following additional ground, which reads as under: Ground of appeal 10 – Recomputation of losses to be carried forward in case resultant tr…

M/S. TASTY BITE EATABLES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1823/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…Court in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been espoused by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, ergo, direct to restrict the transfer pricing addition only to the extent of international transactions in this segment. 11. The next issue raised before the Tribunal is about not granting working capital adjustment. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is noted that the DRP vide para 7.2 of its directions directed the AO/TPO to allow wo…

AGILITY LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-9(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7199/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodagility Logistics Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Polaris, A-501/502, 5Th Floor, Income Tax Circle 9(1)(1), Off Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Mumbai, Room No. 210/260A, Vs. Andheri (East), 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaacl3717A (Appellant) (Respondent) Agility Logistics Private Limited Asstt. Commissioner Of Polaris, A-501/502, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Range 9(1)(1), Off Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 067 Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: S/sshri Dhanesh Bafna, Ketan Ved, Nishant Shah &For Respondent: S/shri Sunil Deshpande & Sushil Kr. Mishra, D.Rs

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

…t restricting the same to the extent of the international transactions of the assessee with its AEs. 13. Before us, the ld. A.R relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-8, Mumbai Vs. Tara Jewells Exports Pvt. ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 404 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Thyssen Crup Industries India (P) Ltd. (2016) 231 ITR 413 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that in its aforesaid orders the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court had held that the entire exercise of determining the ALP in accordance with Chapter X of the Act and in particular Section 92A & 92B of the Act, requires that the tra…

COMMVAULT SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2280/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S.Commvault Systems Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 5Th Floor, Plot No.39, Circle-1(2), B-Block, 7Th Floor, I.T. Towers Phase-Ii, Block-A Ananth Info Park A.C.Guards, Masab Tank Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 004 Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aaccc3708L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…Commvault Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., the case of CIT vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 414 ITR 704 and in the case of CIT vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in 381 ITR 413 (Bom) and CIT vs. Tara Jewels Export P. Ltd., reported in 381 ITR 404 (Bom). 6.7. In any case we find that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the A.Y.2011-12 in ITA No.343/Hyd/2016 dated 11/04/2018 wherein this Tribunal after examining the nature and terms of the distribution agreement had held that assessee‟s functional profile is akin to…

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

…ourt in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, therefore, direct to restrict the transfer pricing addition in the Trading segment only in respect of transactions with AEs. 30. To sum up, we set-aside the transfer pricing addition of Rs.8.29 crore made in the international transaction of Trading of spare parts under the ESAS business segment and remit the matter to the file of…

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

ITA 585/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Vishay Components India Vs. Acit Private Limited, Circle-13, Pune Loni-Kalbhor, Near Pune (C. Rly.), Pune – 412 201 Pan : Aaacb9652L Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)

…ourt in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (St.). Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). We, therefore, direct to restrict the transfer pricing addition only in respect of transactions with Associated Enterprises. 6. Still another issue raised by the assessee in this segment is against non-granting of working capital adjustment. In this regard, it is observed from the direction given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)…

DHL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1030/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Sooddhl Logistics Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 201A,Silver Utopia, Income Tax Circle 9(3)(1), Cardinal Gracias Road, Mumbai Vs. Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 059 Pan – Aaacm6824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan &

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)Section 92D

…igated to consider only the operating costs attributable to the AE sales. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R had relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-8, Mumbai Vs. Tara Jewells Exports Pvt. ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 404 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Thyssen Crup Industries India (P) Ltd. (2016) 231 ITR 413 (Bom). Relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Hon‟ble High Court while approving the view taken by the Tribunal, had observed, that the entire exercise of determining the ALP in accordance with Chapter X of the Act and i…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9, PUNE vs. GESTAMP PUNE AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2717/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2717/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

…Court in CIT Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 32 (st.). Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 413 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P). Ltd. (2010) 381 ITR 404 (Bom.). Since the view canvassed by the ld. CIT(A) accords with that of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforenoted cases, we, therefore, uphold the same. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th October, 2019. (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2