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.

Rolls Royce Marine India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7424/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma PatharphekarFor Respondent: Shri Vodhalraj Singh

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

…ed DRP is merely on conjecture and surmises and completely ad–hoc in nature. Therefore, the adjustment should be deleted. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Merck Ltd., [2016] 389 ITR 70 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Lever India Exports Ltd., [2017] 80 taxmann.com 337 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd., [2017] 80 taxmann.com 337 (Bom.); iv) DCIT v/s Diebold Software Services Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 151 ITD 463 (Mum.) (Trib.); v) Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2013] 37 taxmann.com 233 (Mum.)(Trib.); vi) CIT v/s Kodak India Pvt. Ltd., [2…

Clsa India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 902/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011 -12 Clsa India P. Ltd., Dcit Cir 4(1)(1), (Formerly Cls India Ltd) Mumbai Vs. 8/F, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan Aaacc2262K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr Mukesh ButaniFor Respondent: Ms Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “K”, MUMBAI Before Shri C N Prasad, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year : 2011 -12 CLSA India P. Ltd., DCIT Cir 4(1)(1), (Formerly CLS India Ltd) Mumbai Vs. 8/F, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. PAN AAACC2262K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Mr Mukesh Butani, Ms Karishma Phatarphekar & Mr Harsh Shah Respondent By : Ms Jothilakshmi Nayak Date of Hearing :27.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orde…

Cwt India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

ITA 1588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani/For Respondent: Saurabh Deshpande /

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…id for technical services as nil on the ground that the assessee has failed to establish that the payments were actually made for technical services. The Ld. Counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Merck Limited 389 ITR 70 (Bom), CIT vs. Lever India Exports Ltd. 78 taxmann.com 88 (Bombay High Court) submitted that not adopting of one of the prescribed methods by the Ld. TPO for determining ALP in respect of fees of technical services payable by the assessee to its AEs makes the entire transfer pricing agreement unsustainable in law. In the light of the principles of…

M/S. Indagro Foods Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7342/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, with Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria and Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr.DR’s)

Section 254(1)Section 80HSection 80I

…ay high Court in Associated Capsules (P) Ltd (supra), which is binding precedent on us. It was further brought to our notice that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while considering the similar question of law in CIT Vs Merck Ltd dated 08.08.2016 reported vide (389 ITR 70) “ whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing ITA No. 7342 to 7344 Mum 2008-M/s Indagro Foods Ltd. double deduction under Section 80IB and 80HHC of the Income Tax Act without appreciating that as per provision of Section 80IB (13)/80IA(9) the expression "shall in no case exceed t…

M/S. Aquatech Systems (Asia) Priavate Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 610/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.610/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Karishma PhatarphekarFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(3)

…sion of Pune Bench of Tribunal in M/s. Eaton Fluid Power Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.45/PUN/2013, relating to assessment year 2008-09, order dated 12.03.2018 and various decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court including in the case of CIT Vs. Merck Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 70 (Bom). 8 10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue referring to page 500 of Paper Book pointed out that the document was in Chinese language and it difficult to know head or tail of the same. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue referred to page 7 of the order of DRP and pointed out that professional service c…

Safepack Industries Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2376/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 80HSection 80I

…has referred this matter to the larger bench after considering the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. (supra). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Merck Ltd. (2016) 7 Safepack Industries Limited 389 ITR 70 (Bom.) was once again confronted with the same controversy. After considering the pendency of the matter before the larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Micro Labs (supra), the Hon’ble High Court followed (supra) and refused to admit similar question raised by the Revenue in its appeal. In view of the foregoing discussion, I…

M/S. Eaton Power Quality Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1373/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)

…urred by the respondent assessee passed the test of Section 37 of the Act and / or genuineness of the expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on following decisions :  CIT vs Lever India Exports Ltd. [2017] 292 CTR 393 (Bom)  CIT vs Merck Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 70 (Bom)  CIT vs Kodak India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 288 CTR 46 (Bom)  Pr. CIT vs R.A.K. Ceramics India (P.) Ltd. [2017] 246 Taxman 85 (AP) 3.12 Reliance is placed on the following decisions wherein the Tribunal has deleted the TP adjustment holding that the value of international transactions cannot be 'Nil' by applying CUP method and that an expenditure…

M/S Eaton Power Quality P.Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 119/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)