Coca Cola Inc. v. ACIT

309 ITR 194High Court2009#2746 most cited

What is Coca Cola Inc. v. ACIT authority for?

Income Tax Authorities are not bound by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) permissions when determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Coca Cola India Inc. v. ACIT · 309 ITR 194 · Section 92C · Section 92CA · Arm's Length Price · ALP determination · RBI permission · international transactions · interest payment · royalty rates

Sections most often in play

Section 92CSection 14ASection 10ASection 80IASection 10TASection 10TDSection 10TGSection 115JB

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(ii)section 45(2)section 43dsection 92c(1)section 92ca(4)section 92(1)section 92b(1)section 92fsection 92c(3)minimum alternate taxbenchmarking analysisproject completion method

Judgments citing Coca Cola Inc. v. ACIT

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2452/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rishabh Shah & Rakesh Joshi- Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H.Ansari- Ld.DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 92C

…ory authority of any country would not take into account the transfer pricing provisions to determine the appropriate rates which could be considered as Arm’ Length Price for interest payment. Drawing analogy from the decision rendered in Coca-Cola India Inc. 309 ITR 194 that the royalty rates permitted by RBI would not represent ALP of any international transactions, Ld. TPO opined that determination of ALP was to be M/s JSW Energy Limited Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 examined from the point of view of Transfer Pricing Provisions under the Income Tax Act. 2.9.5 Proceeding further, finding defects in the a…

Si Group India Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 3431/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Si Group India Limited Large Taxpayer Unit – 2 Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area World Trade Centre Thane – Belapur Road Centre 1, 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai – 400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Si Group India Limited V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Large Taxpayer Unit Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Mumbai Thane – Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Vivek A. Perampura

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek A. Perampura
Section 92C

…riate to uphold the grievance of the assessee, and delete the impugned adjustment of Rs.2,71,11,495/-. The assessee gets the relief accordingly.” 9. As regards Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment in the case of Coca Cola India Inc. vs. ACIT [(2009) 221 CTR 225 (P&H)] relied upon by the learned CIT(A) holding that RBI approval will not be determinative factor, we may only point out that this view has not found favour with Hon’ble Supreme Court in the sense that Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Coca Cola Inc. vs. ACIT [(2011) 336 ITR 1 (SC)] set aside this order, and directed the authorities to…

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. S I Group India Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 3306/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Si Group India Limited Large Taxpayer Unit – 2 Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area World Trade Centre Thane – Belapur Road Centre 1, 29Th Floor, Cuffe Parade Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai – 400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Si Group India Limited V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Large Taxpayer Unit Plot No: D-2/I, Ttc Industrial Area Mumbai Thane – Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaach7323L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Department By : Shri Vivek A. Perampura

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek A. Perampura
Section 92C

…riate to uphold the grievance of the assessee, and delete the impugned adjustment of Rs.2,71,11,495/-. The assessee gets the relief accordingly.” 9. As regards Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment in the case of Coca Cola India Inc. vs. ACIT [(2009) 221 CTR 225 (P&H)] relied upon by the learned CIT(A) holding that RBI approval will not be determinative factor, we may only point out that this view has not found favour with Hon’ble Supreme Court in the sense that Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Coca Cola Inc. vs. ACIT [(2011) 336 ITR 1 (SC)] set aside this order, and directed the authorities to…

DCIT, Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Amazon Metals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 905/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-8(4) Vs. M/s Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 PAN/GIR No.AAHCA6693B (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 74/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.903/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Acro Exports Trade Vs. DCIT, CC-8(4) Room No. 658, 6th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 0…

Dcie Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Pali Fabrics Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 904/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-8(4) Vs. M/s Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6th Floor 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 PAN/GIR No.AAFCP0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-8(4) 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 0…

DCIT Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Acro Exports Trade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 903/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-8(4) Vs. M/s Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 PAN/GIR No.AAHCA6693B (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 74/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.903/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Acro Exports Trade Vs. DCIT, CC-8(4) Room No. 658, 6th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 0…

Mx Systems International P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result the assessee’s appeal in ITA no

ITA 1889/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1889/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Mx Systems Dcit 12(3)(2) R.No. 147B, International Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 202A-202D, Arvind V. Mumbai-400020 Chambers, Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaecm5026B

For Appellant: Shri. Chetan A. KariaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…ons are clearly influenced by Minimax GMBH and its management is same as Minimax Gmbh and therefore it is covered u/s 92A. - In COCA COLA INDIA INC. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. The Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, reported in (2009) 309 ITR 194 in answering the question (iii) Whether provisions of Chapter X are attracted when both the parties to a transaction are subject to tax in India, in absence of allegation of transfer of profits out of India or evasion of tax ? held that "52. We have already reproduced the amended provisions of Chapter X. According to the petitioner, the same shou…

Minimax Gmbh & Co. Kg, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the assessee’s appeal in ITA no

ITA 1888/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1889/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Mx Systems Dcit 12(3)(2) R.No. 147B, International Private Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 202A-202D, Arvind V. Mumbai-400020 Chambers, Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaecm5026B

For Appellant: Shri. Chetan A. KariaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…ons are clearly influenced by Minimax GMBH and its management is same as Minimax Gmbh and therefore it is covered u/s 92A. - In COCA COLA INDIA INC. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. The Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, reported in (2009) 309 ITR 194 in answering the question (iii) Whether provisions of Chapter X are attracted when both the parties to a transaction are subject to tax in India, in absence of allegation of transfer of profits out of India or evasion of tax ? held that "52. We have already reproduced the amended provisions of Chapter X. According to the petitioner, the same shou…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1067/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…n the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had taken a contrary view, which was not referred or quoted before the Delhi Bench of Tribunal. Further, in the said decision, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down in Coca Cola Inc. Vs. ACIT (2009) 309 ITR 194 (P&H), which has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case itself and the same is taken note in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 93. Similar is the proposition laid down in the case of Louis Vuitton India Retail (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). The Tribunal in the said case had decided two issues ie. Reference…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1066/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…n the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had taken a contrary view, which was not referred or quoted before the Delhi Bench of Tribunal. Further, in the said decision, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down in Coca Cola Inc. Vs. ACIT (2009) 309 ITR 194 (P&H), which has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case itself and the same is taken note in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 93. Similar is the proposition laid down in the case of Louis Vuitton India Retail (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). The Tribunal in the said case had decided two issues ie. Reference…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1065/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…n the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had taken a contrary view, which was not referred or quoted before the Delhi Bench of Tribunal. Further, in the said decision, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down in Coca Cola Inc. Vs. ACIT (2009) 309 ITR 194 (P&H), which has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case itself and the same is taken note in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 93. Similar is the proposition laid down in the case of Louis Vuitton India Retail (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). The Tribunal in the said case had decided two issues ie. Reference…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1064/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…n the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had taken a contrary view, which was not referred or quoted before the Delhi Bench of Tribunal. Further, in the said decision, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down in Coca Cola Inc. Vs. ACIT (2009) 309 ITR 194 (P&H), which has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case itself and the same is taken note in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 93. Similar is the proposition laid down in the case of Louis Vuitton India Retail (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). The Tribunal in the said case had decided two issues ie. Reference…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1063/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…n the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had taken a contrary view, which was not referred or quoted before the Delhi Bench of Tribunal. Further, in the said decision, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down in Coca Cola Inc. Vs. ACIT (2009) 309 ITR 194 (P&H), which has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case itself and the same is taken note in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 93. Similar is the proposition laid down in the case of Louis Vuitton India Retail (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). The Tribunal in the said case had decided two issues ie. Reference…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1062/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…n the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had taken a contrary view, which was not referred or quoted before the Delhi Bench of Tribunal. Further, in the said decision, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down in Coca Cola Inc. Vs. ACIT (2009) 309 ITR 194 (P&H), which has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case itself and the same is taken note in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 93. Similar is the proposition laid down in the case of Louis Vuitton India Retail (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). The Tribunal in the said case had decided two issues ie. Reference…

M/S. Dolphin Drilling Pte. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 355/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…CTR 425 (Del) • CIT vs. Fortis Healthcare Ltd: 181 Taxman 257 (Del) • C.I.T. vs. Stewards and Llyods, 165 ITR 416 (Cal) • CIT vs. Sundwiger Emfg. & Co.: 262 ITR 116 (AP) • Mahindra & Mahindra: 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)(MUM) • Coca Cola India Inc. v. ACIT: (2006) 7 SOT 224 (Del) • Clifford Chance v. DCIT: 82 ITD 106 (Mum) • Hyder Consulting Ltd. v. CIT: 236 ITR 640 (AAR) • DECTA v. CIT: 237 ITR 190 (AAR) • Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd: 309 ITR 356 (AAR) Since in the present case, the receipts of the appellant from DDL are pure reimbursements of cost incurred by the appellant for supplying the crew to DD…

Granite Services International India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 740/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Granite Services Dcit International India Private Vs Circle-10(2), Limited, Building No.7A, New Delhi 5Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Sector -25A, Gurgaon-122002 Pan Aaccg3374Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…Co. Ltd. [2001] 114 Taxman 141 (Bombay HC) (6) JDIT (Int. Tax) vs. KRUPP UHDE GmbH [2009] 26 DTR 289 (Mumbai ITAT): [2010] 1 ITR 614 (Mumbai) (7) Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture vs. ACIT [2010] 5 ITR 75 (Mumbai ITAT) (8) Coca-Cola India Inc. vs. Addl. CIT [2006] 7 SOT 224 (Delhi ITAT) (9) ITO vs. Dr. Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd. [2005] 95 TTJ 53 (Delhi ITAT) 33. He accordingly submitted that reimbursement of Travel and conveyance expenses by the assessee to Granite USA does not warrant any tax deduction under section 195 of the Act. Since the amount as such is not chargeable to tax in India, disallowance under sec…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Futura Bioplants Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1271/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1271/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Vora & Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 10(1)Section 2

…relied on following decisions mentioned at Para No.4.3.5 of his order : 1. R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd. Vs. CIT 301 ITR 309 (SC) 2. ACIT Vs. Rogini Garments 294 ITR 15 (AT (Chn) (SB) 3. K.P. Verghese Vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 4. Cocoa Cola India Inc. Vs. ACIT 309 ITR 194 (P&H HC) 5. CIT Vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. 261 ITR 721 (Ker. HC) 6. Eventually, the CIT(A) held that the income earned by the assessee on sale of saplings constitute deemed agricultural income of the assessee vide Explanation 3 to section 2(1A) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved with the above decision of CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before u…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Xansa India Ltd., Noida

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2283/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ankur Garg, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 40Section 40a

…- HC) • ACITvs. Modicon Network (P) Ltd.: (2007) 14 SOT 204 (Del) • Bangalore International Airport Ltd. vs. ITO: 116 ITD 446 (Bang) • Rolls Royce India Ltd. vs. ITO: 25 ITD 136(Del) • Clifford chance vs. DCIT: 82 ITD 106(Mum) • Coca Cola India Inc. vs. ACIT: 7 SOT 224(Del) 11.69 It cannot be anybody's case that the pure reimbursement of expenditure would constitute an income chargeable to tax in India in the hands of Xansa-UK. In my view, since the payment being mere reimbursement of the amount of subsistence allowance initially paid by Xansa-UK on behalf of the appellant to its employees, such payment in absen…

M/S Obulapuram Mining Company P. Ltd., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K.Mathew, CIT-III
Section 263Section 92A

…functions conferred upon them u/s 92C or 92CA of the 27. On the other hand, duly supporting the action of the AO and that of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard, the ld. DR has sought to place reliance on the following case laws: i) "Coca Cola India Inc vs. ACIT", 309 ITR 194 (P&H) ii) "Sony India P. Ltd. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another", 288 ITR 52 (Delhi) and iii) "Aztec Software and Technology Services Ltd. vs. ACIT", 294 ITR (AT) 32 (Bangalore) [SB] 28. With regard to "Sony India Pvt.Ltd." (Supra), the Ld. DR ITA No.545(B)/2012 has contended that as per this decision, the AO is not required to fo…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. S.I. Group India Ltd ( Formerly M/S. Schenectady Herdillia Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 813/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…iate to uphold the grievance of the assessee, and delete the impugned adjustment of Rs.2,71,11,495/-. The assessee gets the relief accordingly.” 9. As regards Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment in the case of Coca Cola India Inc. vs. ACIT [(2009) 221 CTR 225 (P&H)] relied upon by the learned CIT(A) holding that RBI approval will not be determinative factor, we may only point out that this view has not found favour with Hon’ble Supreme Court in the sense that Hon’ble I.T.A. Nos.813 & 1009/Mum/2013 & C.O. No.192/Mum/2013 Assessment year: 2007-08 Page 9 of 11 Supreme Court has, in the case of Coca Cola…