How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd.?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd. (389 ITR 70), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10B, Section 92C, Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 253(1)(d), Section 270A.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd.

389 ITR 70High Court2016#2426 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd. authority for?

Ad-hoc transfer pricing adjustments are not justified if the Transfer Pricing Officer fails to apply one of the prescribed methods under Section 92C. The arm's length nature of international transactions, including intra-group services and management fees, should be determined through a detailed FAR analysis and benchmarking study.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd. · Section 92C · ad-hoc transfer pricing adjustment · intra-group services · management fees · FAR analysis · benchmarking · arm's length price determination · TPO methods · international transaction

Also reported as

288 CTR 4673 Taxmann.com 23

Sections most often in play

Section 10B Section 92C Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 253(1)(d)Section 270A Section 10D(1)Section 10D(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 92c(1)section 75 intra group services management fees section 92(1)cost plus method far analysis comparable uncontrolled price method functional analysis benchmarking analysis transactional net margin method section 92c(3)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd.

Raymond Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl C.I.T. -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2660/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 115JSection 14ASection 35DSection 92C

…of the Act which mandates that one of the specified methods have to be adopted. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Lever India Exports Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxmann 133 and CIT vs Merck Ltd. 389 ITR 70 (copies separately handed over at the time of hearing), and are enclosed herewith which are at pages 1 to 5 in case of Merck Ltd. and at pages 6 to 9 in case of Lever India Exports Ltd. wherein, it is held that it is mandatory for the TPO to bench-markthe international transaction by following one of the method specified in section 92C(1) of the A…

M/S. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2519/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 115JSection 14ASection 35DSection 92C

Xander Advisors India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1379/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 92C

…he ld. CIT(A) is also erroneous and deserves to be quashed. 10. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on three decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lever India Exports Ltd 292 CTR 393, Merck Ltd 389 ITR 70 and Kodak India [P} Ltd 288 CTR 46. 11. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly stated that it cannot be stated that the Assessing Officer has not determined the ALP by applying most appropriate method. It is the say of the ld. DR that the Assessing Officer has taken a leaf from the proceedings of the TPO for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 and ha…

Xander Advisors India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1378/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT- DR

Section 153ASection 92C

M/S Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3403/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.3403/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2014-15 Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Unit 5, 3rd Floor, Explorer Building, Ward 1(1)(1), International Tech Park, Bangalore. Whitefield Road, Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AAECA 2635C ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 30.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 O R D E R Pe…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner of UB Towers, Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(1) v. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AACCM8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed ag…

Peri (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds no

ITA 4607/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Tejender Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 254(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4607/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Peri (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1406, DLH Park, S.V. Road ……………. Appellant Goregaon (West), Mumbai 400 062 PAN – AAECP4115E v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–13(1)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue by : Shri Tejender Pal Singh Date of Hearing – 08.02.2022 Date of Order – 14/03/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal filed by the assessee is listed…

Dsv Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 922/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledvs Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional/Joint/ A-203, The Qube, Cts Assistant No. 1489, Mv Road, Commissioner Of Marol, Andheri East, Income Tax, National Mumbai – 400059. E- Assessment Centre, Delhi. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu5306L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Karishmaprataphekar.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Ms.KarishmaPrataphekar.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(1)

…costs and expenses that were to be worked out as per the fixed cost allocation keys, can safely be held to be a „retainer agreement‟ between them. We find that the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-8 Vs. Merck Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 70 (Bom) had approved the observations of the Tribunal that in a case of a „retainer agreement‟ entered into by an assessee with its AE for a certain set of services the ALP of some of the services not availed by the assessee during the year cannot be taken at Nil. The assessee in the aforementioned case had entered into a retainer agreement with its…

Ppg Coatings India P.Ltd (Now Merged With Ppg Asian Paints P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assesse stands allowed

ITA 7624/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 7624/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year 2008-09) Vs. DCIT-9(2) PPG Coatings India Pvt. Ltd. (Now merged with PPG Asian Mumbai Paints Pvt. Ltd.) 158, Vidyanagari Marg Dani Wootex Compound Kalina, Santacruz(East) Mumbai-400 098. PAN : AABCS4378K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Percy Pardiwala Department by Shri Rajesh Mishra Date of Hearing 04.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.01.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) : This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Assessing Off…

Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 901/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

Section 143(3)

…I.T.A. No.901/Mum/2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.901 /Mum/2015 (Assessment year 2010-11) Greatship (India) Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- C/o Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 5(1)(1), Mumbai Army & Navy Building 3rd Floor, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 PAN : AABCG8542K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Respondent by Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, DR Date of hearing 24-03-2021 Date of pronouncement 22-04-2021 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, JM: This…

L'Oreal India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 130/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 130/मुं/2013 ("न.व. 2007-08) It(Tp)A No.130/Mum/2013(A.Y.2007-08) M/S. L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaacl0738K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 6(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

…that the payment is not warranted for that particular service that has not been utilised. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further pointed that the decision of the Tribunal has been approved by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Merck Ltd., 389 ITR 70 (Bom). 4. Shri Anand Mohan representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing groundno.1 raised by the assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the TPO after examining various agreements executed by the assessee with its overseas AE concluded that there is a duplication of services in…

Dow Corning India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7143/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 7143/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2013-14) Dow Corning India Private Limited, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor, Block –B,02 Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojeshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 079 Pan: Aaacv0807G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer,14(1)(3), Room No.458, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar/For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “के”, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेशकुमार के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 7143/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2013-14) Dow Corning India Private Limited, Godrej IT Park-P2, 1st Floor, Block –B,02 LBS Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojeshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 079 PAN: AAACV0807G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer,14(1)(3), Room No.458, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee…

Dow Agrosciences India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6618/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Income Tax-3(1)(1) Godrej It Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…Dow Agrosciences India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai – A.Y 2014-15 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Dow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner of Limited, 1st Floor, Block B, Income tax-3(1)(1) Godrej IT Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN – AAACD3813H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R Respondent by: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R Date of Hearing: 10.02.2021 Da…

Dow Corning India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1963/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dow Corning India The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Range 14(1)(3), Godrej It Park-P2, Room No.458, 1St Floor, Block B, 02 Aayakar Bhavan, Lbs Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Godrej Business District Mumbai - 400020 Pirojeshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aaacu0807G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. Shri Hiten Chandei, A.R. Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R. Shri Anand Mohan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Dow Corning India The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Range 14(1)(3), Godrej IT Park-P2, Room No.458, 1st Floor, Block B, 02 Aayakar Bhavan, LBS Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Godrej Business District Mumbai - 400020 Pirojeshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 400 079 PAN: AAACU0807G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. Shri Hiten Chandei, A.R. Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Sunil Deshpande,…

Dow Agrosciences India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1051/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Acit, Range-14(1)(2) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3812H (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A. No.203/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dow Agrosciences India Private Dcit, Range-14(1)(1) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A. No.1528/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dow Agrosciences India Private Income Tax Officer , Range-14(1)(3) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 458, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/w Shri. Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Jha, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…ITA Nos.1051/Mum/2015, ITA No.203/Mum/2016 & ITA No.1528/Mum/2017 1 A.Ys 2010-11 to 2012-13 Dow Agrosciences India Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range-14(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Dow Agrosciences India Private ACIT, Range-14(1)(2) Limited, 1st Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej IT Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 PAN – AAACD3812H (Appellant) (Respondent) IT(TP)A. No.203/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dow Agrosciences India Private DCI…

East West Seeds India Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 702/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.469/PUN/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 East West Seeds India Private Limited, Gut No. 66, Village-Narayanpur (BK), P.O.-Waluj, Taluka-Gangapur, Aurangabad – 431133 PAN : AABCE1237F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.702/PUN/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ea…

East West Seeds India Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3054/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy

Section 143(3)Section 92C

East West Seeds India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 469/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Sumitomo Chemical (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6432/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma PhatarphekarFor Respondent: Shri Bhoopathi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…re the DRP submitted that the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot determine the arm’s length price at nil, that too, on ad–hoc basis without following any prescribed method. In this context, she relied upon the following decisions:– 20. CIT v/s Merck Ltd., (2016) 389 ITR 70 (Bom.); 21. CIT v/s Lever India Exports Ltd., (2017) 78 taxmann.com 88 (Bom.); 22. CIT v/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd.,(2017) 80 taxmann.com 337 (Bom.); 23. Wartsila India Ltd. v/s ACIT, (2018) (10) TMI 1669, ITAT, Mumbai; 24. CIT v/s Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 288 CTR 46 (Bom.); 15 Sumitomo Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. 25. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACI…

Regus Business Centre P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1110/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramesh C. Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1110/मुं/2017 ("न. व.2012-13) Regus Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. Level -2, Raheja Centre Point, Near Mumbai University, Opp. Bandra Kurla Complex, Santacruz East, Mumbai 400 098 Pan: Aadcr1920Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 13(3)(1) Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla with Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…nies are held by a foreign entity, the transaction cannot be termed as deemed International Transaction. In support of his contention the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- i. CIT vs. Kodak India P. Ltd., 288 CTR 46 (Bom) ii. Research Data Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, in ITA No. 1842/Mum/2017, for A.Y 2012-13 decided on 16/10/2019. 4. Per contra, Shri Uodal Raj Singh, representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order and the directions of the DRP. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiat…