DCIT v. Starlite

40 SOT 421Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#11902 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Starlite

Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4062/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4062/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 15 Dsidc, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-10(2), Phase-Ii, Scheme-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg2938H Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated Xx.02.2019 Passed By The Ao U/S 254/143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ed 28-5- 2008] wherein it had been held that each international transaction is to be examined separately and ALP should be determined accordingly and different activities cannot be clubbed and common ALP cannot be determined; (xiii) Dy. CIT v. Starlite [2010] 40 SOT 421 (Mum) wherein it had been held that TNMM does not permit comparison at enterprise level profits, it requires comparison of net margin realized from an international transaction (Xix) xxxxxx Software Solutions (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann.com 264/46 SOT 48 (Mum.) wherein it had been held that TNMM required comparison of net margin rea…

Levi Staruss (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 695/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 695/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Sjr Cyber, 7Th Floor, Commissioner Of No. 22, Laskar Hosur Road, Income Tax, Adugodi, Circle 4 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 030. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl3092Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961("The Act") On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…adjustment to the international transaction only, but, computed the ALP at entity level, which includes non-AE transactions also. In support, he placed reliance on following decisions. 1) Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Starlite reported in (2010) 40 SOT 421 Page 10 of 16 IT(TP)A No. 695/Bang/2016 2) Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of T Two International Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5644/Mum/2008 3) Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5147/Del/2010 4) Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 20…

Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iot Design & Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 63/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaiot Design & Engineering Vs. Dcit-10(3) Limited Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Plot No.Y2, Ceat Tyre Road, Mumbai-400 020 Near Nahur Railway Station, Bhandup(W) Mumbai-400 078

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

…t (Israel) Limited vs DCIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 499 {Mumbai Trib.) 35 IOT Design & Engineering Limited Alstom Projects India Ltd vs ACIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 130 (Mumbai Trib.) Star Diamond Group vs DCIT 2011] 44 SOT 532 (Mumbai) DCIT vs Starlite [2010] 40 SOT 421 (MUM.) – ITAT Huntsman Advanced Materials (India) Pvt. Ltd I.T.A. No. 8237/Mum/2010. – ITAT vs DCIT ITAT-Other Kirloskar Toyoda Textile Machinery Private [2015] 53 taxmann.com 389 Limited vs ACIT (Bangalore - Trib.) Mindteck (India) Limited vs ITO [2015] 55 taxmann.com 261 (Bangalore - Trib.) Gillete India Ltd vs ACIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 133…

Iot Design & Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 4722/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaiot Design & Engineering Vs. Dcit-10(3) Limited Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Plot No.Y2, Ceat Tyre Road, Mumbai-400 020 Near Nahur Railway Station, Bhandup(W) Mumbai-400 078

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

…t (Israel) Limited vs DCIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 499 {Mumbai Trib.) 35 IOT Design & Engineering Limited Alstom Projects India Ltd vs ACIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 130 (Mumbai Trib.) Star Diamond Group vs DCIT 2011] 44 SOT 532 (Mumbai) DCIT vs Starlite [2010] 40 SOT 421 (MUM.) – ITAT Huntsman Advanced Materials (India) Pvt. Ltd I.T.A. No. 8237/Mum/2010. – ITAT vs DCIT ITAT-Other Kirloskar Toyoda Textile Machinery Private [2015] 53 taxmann.com 389 Limited vs ACIT (Bangalore - Trib.) Mindteck (India) Limited vs ITO [2015] 55 taxmann.com 261 (Bangalore - Trib.) Gillete India Ltd vs ACIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 133…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Magic Software Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, cross objection filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1802/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1802/Pun/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-11(1), Pune अपीलाथ"/Appellant ….

For Appellant: Shri Arun Chhabra & Ms. Shilpa SFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 92C

…pondent would like to place reliance on the following cases in support of the above argument: • CIT vs. Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd [ITA No. 1814/2013] • Huntsman Advanced Materials (I) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT [ITA No. 8237/Mum/2010] • M/s Starlite vs DCIT [2010] 40 SOT 421 (MUM • ACIT v/s Ms Tej Diam [I.TA. No. 5034/Mum/2007] • IL Jin Electronics (I) (P) Ltd v/s ACIT [(2010) 36 SOT 227 (DELHI)] • Chiron Behring Vaccines Pvt Ltd Vs Asst CIT, Mumbai ITAT 2011 The Ld. CIT(A) was principally in favor of the above argument raised by the Respondent that the transfer pricing adjustment should be made only in relation to t…

Landis + Gyr Limited, South 24 Parganas vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 37/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 43B

…activities. Consequently, we uphold the assessee's method of ALP. Consideration of transaction by transaction approach for determination of the arm's length price has also been upheld in the following mentioned judicial precedents: • Ankit Diamonds ( 2011) 43 SOT 523( Mumbai Trib.) • Avineon India (P) Ltd, TS-308-ITAT-2013(Hyd)-TP • DCIT -vs- M/s Starlite (133 TTJ 425) (Mumbai Trib.) • Symantec Software Solutions (P) Ltd., (2011) 46 SOT 48 (Mumbai Trib) • Tecnimount ICB (P) Ltd., (2011) 11 taxmann.com 49 (Mumbai Trib.) Accordingly, he argued that the ‘transaction by transaction approach’ adopted by the assesse…

M/S Landis+Gyr Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1623/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 43B

…activities. Consequently, we uphold the assessee's method of ALP. Consideration of transaction by transaction approach for determination of the arm's length price has also been upheld in the following mentioned judicial precedents: • Ankit Diamonds ( 2011) 43 SOT 523( Mumbai Trib.) • Avineon India (P) Ltd, TS-308-ITAT-2013(Hyd)-TP • DCIT -vs- M/s Starlite (133 TTJ 425) (Mumbai Trib.) • Symantec Software Solutions (P) Ltd., (2011) 46 SOT 48 (Mumbai Trib) • Tecnimount ICB (P) Ltd., (2011) 11 taxmann.com 49 (Mumbai Trib.) Accordingly, he argued that the ‘transaction by transaction approach’ adopted by the assesse…

Unique Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5969/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm

For Respondent: Shri J. Premanand
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…M analysis, adjustment is required to be made on total transactions entered as the analysis is on entity level. At the outset it is fairly admitted that this issue was already crystallized in favour of assessee by the following decisions: a) DCIT v. Starlite (40 SOT 421 (Mum) b) DCIT vs. Ankit Diamonds (43 SOT 523 (Mum) c) Addl. CIT vs. Tej Dam (37 SOT 341 (Mum) d) M/s Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 1231/Bang/2010) e) ACIT vs. Wockhardt Ltd (6 Taxman.com 78 ITAT (Mum) f) Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd (2010 TII-54-ITAT (Del) g) DCIT vs. Startex Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd (2010 — TII-13 ITAT (D…

ACIT Cir 5(3), Mumbai vs. Unique Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5889/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm

For Respondent: Shri J. Premanand
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…M analysis, adjustment is required to be made on total transactions entered as the analysis is on entity level. At the outset it is fairly admitted that this issue was already crystallized in favour of assessee by the following decisions: a) DCIT v. Starlite (40 SOT 421 (Mum) b) DCIT vs. Ankit Diamonds (43 SOT 523 (Mum) c) Addl. CIT vs. Tej Dam (37 SOT 341 (Mum) d) M/s Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 1231/Bang/2010) e) ACIT vs. Wockhardt Ltd (6 Taxman.com 78 ITAT (Mum) f) Abhishek Auto Industries Ltd (2010 TII-54-ITAT (Del) g) DCIT vs. Startex Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd (2010 — TII-13 ITAT (D…

DCIT v. Starlite (40 SOT 421) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax