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

381 ITR 404High Court2016#4212 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.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 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 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

arms length pricecomparable companiesmost appropriate methodarm's length pricetransfer pricing adjustmenttnmmassociated enterprisesection 92section 92casection 92cinternational transactiontransfer

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

Huntsman Advanced Materials (India ) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6528/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodhuntsman International (India) Private Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 8(2), Limited (As Successor To ‘Huntsman Advanced Aaykar Bhawan, Materials India Pvt. Ltd.’ W.E.F 30 June, 2012 In Mumbai – 400 020 Terms Of Te Scheme Of Merger Approved By The Hon’Ble Bombay & Gujarat High Courts Vide Its Order Dated 12 November, 2013 & 15 January, Vs. 2014, Respectively, The Said Scheme Is Effective From 4 April, 2014); Office :Lighthall, B-Wing, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 072. Pan – Aabch3909H (Appellant) (Respondent) Huntsman International (India) Private Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 8(2), Limited (As Successor To ‘Huntsman Advanced Aaykar Bhawan, Materials India Pvt. Ltd.’ W.E.F 30 June, 2012 In Mumbai – 400 020 Terms Of Te Scheme Of Merger Approved By The Hon’Ble Bombay & Gujarat High Courts Vide Its Order Dated 12 November, 2013 & 15 January, Vs. 2014, Respectively, The Said Scheme Is Effective From 4 April, 2014); Office :Lighthall, B-Wing, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 072. Pan – Aabch3909H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, CIT D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…and had thus wrongly worked out the same on the entire trading sales of the assessee. In support of his aforesaid contention, the Ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports (P) Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 404 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the Hon’ble High Court in the said judgment had held that as per the provisions of Chapter X of the Act, the arm’s length of only the international transactions of the assessee with its AE’s is to be determined. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that if the determination of the ALP is confined to the in…

Howden Insurance Brokers India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6997/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodhowden Insurance Brokers India Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit- (Osd) 3(1), 6Th Floor, Pennisula Chambers, Pennisula 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Mrg, Mumbai 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay Mehta and Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri M.C Omi Ningshen, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…sessee from its AE and not in respect of the entire amount of the reinsurance commission of Rs.3,15,37,401/-. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of the CIT Vs. Tara Jewells Exports Pvt. ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 404 (Bom). In the said case, the Hon‟ble High P a g e | 9 Court while dismissing the appeal of the revenue had concurred with the view taken by the Tribunal that a transfer pricing adjustment which was to be done to arrive at the arm‟s length price was only to be confined in respect of the transactions carried out by the assessee with its associate…

Yazaki India P Ltd., (Formerly Known As Yazaki (I) Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 621/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

…r pricing provisions apply only to the transactions between the associated enterprises and not to unrelated or non-associated enterprises. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 94 CCH 032-MumHC (Bom): (2016) 381 ITR 404 (Bom) has held that sections 92A and 92B require transfer pricing adjustment to be done only in respect of the transactions entered into between the assessee with its AEs and not with the non-AEs. Similar view has been reiterated again by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 41…

ACIT 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Food Solutions India P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5781/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)

…uding jurisdictional Bombay High Court, the copies of which have been placed on record. Some of them could be tabulated as under:- Assessment Year-2011-12 No. Case Law Judicial Authority Citation 1. CIT Vs Tata Jewels Exports Private 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…

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)

…uding jurisdictional Bombay High Court, the copies of which have been placed on record. Some of them could be tabulated as under:- Assessment Year-2011-12 No. Case Law Judicial Authority Citation 1. CIT Vs Tata Jewels Exports Private 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…

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…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Tara Jewels Export P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1385/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Tara Jewels Export Pvt. Income Tax-8(3) Ltd, Plot 23(P), 30(P), Sub- Room No. 217, Aayakar Plot “A”, Seepz, Sez, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai- Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 400 020 096 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabct1161H

For Appellant: S. Sriram & Mayank Thosar, ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Deshpande, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM The Dy. Commissioner of M/s Tara Jewels Export Pvt. Income Tax-8(3) Ltd, Plot 23(P), 30(P), Sub- Room No. 217, Aayakar Plot “A”, SEEPZ, SEZ, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai- Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 400 020 096 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AABCT1161H Revenue by : Saurabh Deshpande, DR Assessee by : S. Sriram & Mayank Thosar, AR Date of hearing: 12-04-2018 Date of pronouncement : 12-04-2018 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of Commissione…

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…