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

Si Group (I) Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai

ITA 1009/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…

Sterling Oil Resources Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1970/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ground No. 1
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92(2)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…for the transfer pricing purposes. A reference was made to the decision of a coordinate bench, in the case of Perot Systems Vs DCIT [(2010) 5 ITR Trib 106 (Del)], and to Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of Coca Cola Inc Vs CIT [(2009) 309 ITR 194 (P&H)]. A reference was also made to theory of substance over form. He held that “the transaction is in fact a loan and the term ‘share application money’ a fiction. The TPO thus concluded as follows: 7. Conclusion: In view of the above discussion, it is stated that the assessee’s stand regarding the share application money not being liable to i…

ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sterling Oil Resources P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1791/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ground No. 1
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92(2)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…for the transfer pricing purposes. A reference was made to the decision of a coordinate bench, in the case of Perot Systems Vs DCIT [(2010) 5 ITR Trib 106 (Del)], and to Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of Coca Cola Inc Vs CIT [(2009) 309 ITR 194 (P&H)]. A reference was also made to theory of substance over form. He held that “the transaction is in fact a loan and the term ‘share application money’ a fiction. The TPO thus concluded as follows: 7. Conclusion: In view of the above discussion, it is stated that the assessee’s stand regarding the share application money not being liable to i…