Coca Cola India v. ACIT &Or&

17 DTR 66High Court2009#15060 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing Coca Cola India v. ACIT &Or&

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…

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 243/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2010-11

…the view that such a difference in rates applicable for domestic sales and exports is incorrect. As for the RBI approval of the royalty rates, the TPO referred to Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment in the case of Coca Cola India Inc Vs CIT [(2009) 17 DTR 66 (P&H)]. The TPO, accordingly, concluded that “the difference in royalty payment in domestic and export transactions, after taking into account ALP rate of 5%, is required to be adjusted in order that international transaction representing royalty payment is at arm’s length”. In effect thus, 5% royalty payment for export sales was held to be arm’s l…

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 671/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2009-10

…the view that such a difference in rates applicable for domestic sales and exports is incorrect. As for the RBI approval of the royalty rates, the TPO referred to Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment in the case of Coca Cola India Inc Vs CIT [(2009) 17 DTR 66 (P&H)]. The TPO, accordingly, concluded that “the difference in royalty payment in domestic and export transactions, after taking into account ALP rate of 5%, is required to be adjusted in order that international transaction representing royalty payment is at arm’s length”. In effect thus, 5% royalty payment for export sales was held to be arm’s l…

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT., Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2609/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2008-09

…the view that such a difference in rates applicable for domestic sales and exports is incorrect. As for the RBI approval of the royalty rates, the TPO referred to Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment in the case of Coca Cola India Inc Vs CIT [(2009) 17 DTR 66 (P&H)]. The TPO, accordingly, concluded that “the difference in royalty payment in domestic and export transactions, after taking into account ALP rate of 5%, is required to be adjusted in order that international transaction representing royalty payment is at arm’s length”. In effect thus, 5% royalty payment for export sales was held to be arm’s l…

Coca Cola India v. ACIT &Or& (17 DTR 66) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax