Delhi in CIT v. Oracle India (P) Ltd.

243 CTR 103High Court2011#15473 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 234BSection 234CSection 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

Judgments citing Delhi in CIT v. Oracle India (P) Ltd.

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(3)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1834/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 M/S Genpact Services Llc Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 22A & B, Sector-18, Income Tax, Udyog Vihar, Circle – Int. Tax 1(3)(1), Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana-122002 (Pan: Aaccg3353P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Ms. ReemaFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(13)

…e ALP so determined by the TPO, is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in Vodafone India Service (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2013) 359 ITR 133 (Bom) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Oracle India (P) Ltd. (2011) 243 CTR 103 (Del). Also, support is drawn from the order of the ITAT, Delhi in DCIT vs, YKK India Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of a strong conviction that the rejection of the allocation key of reimbursement of expenses by the assessee to its AE viz. CWNIPL after the arm‟s length price of the same had been accepte…

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Genpact Services Llc, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 22A & B, Circle-1(3)(1), Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccg3353P

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92C

…e ALP so determined by the TPO, is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in Vodafone India Service (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2013) 359 ITR 133 (Bom) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Oracle India (P) Ltd. (2011) 243 CTR 103 (Del). Also, support is drawn from the order of the ITAT, Delhi in DCIT vs, YKK India Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of a strong conviction that the rejection of the allocation key of reimbursement of expenses by the assessee to its AE viz. CWNIPL after the arm‟s length price of the same had been accepte…

AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1982/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri R.K. Panda, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1982/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. American Express Services India Private Limited (Earlier Known As American Express Services India Limited), Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aabct0555D Vs The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Central Revenue Building, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Advcate & Sh S. Chakrabarty, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2020 आदेश आदेश / Order आदेश आदेश Per Sushma Chowla, Vp This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2015, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Advcate, &For Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…y and, the Transfer Pricing Officer vide order dated 15.2.2005 has accepted the transaction without making any adjustment to the arms length price. In this view of the matter and as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oracle India Pvt Ltd (243 CTR 103), when the price fixed is acceptable as arms length price by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92 of the Act, it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to disturb that price so paid as unreasonable. We have also noted that the Assessing Officer has doubted the appropriateness of the consideration of Rs.12 crores without any cogent mat…

CABLE AND WIRELESS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6075/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita No. 756/Mum/2017 Cable & Wireless (India) Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Bmr & Associates Bmr House, (International Taxation),Circle-2(1)(1), 36B, R.K. Shirodkar Marg, Parel, Vs. R. No. 1713, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai – 400 012 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 2Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

…e ALP so determined by the TPO, is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in Vodafone India Service (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2013) 359 ITR 133 (Bom) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Oracle India (P) Ltd. (2011) 243 CTR 103 (Del). Also, support is drawn from the order of the ITAT, Delhi in DCIT vs, YKK India Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of a strong conviction that the rejection of the allocation key of reimbursement of expenses by the assessee to its AE viz. CWNIPL after the arm‟s length price of the same had been accepte…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SENTIA POWER LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 1461/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…n of the business and a host of other related circumstances. The rule that increased remuneration can only be justified if there be corresponding increase in the profits of the employer is, in our judgment, erroneous." iv) CIT v. Oracle India fP.l Ltd. f2011) 243 CTR 103 (Delhi!: It was held that revenue cannot sit in arm's chair of Assessee and decide as to how affairs of business were to be run and wasteful or excessive expenditure was to be curtailed v) CIT v. Dalmia Cement IP.l Ltd f20021 121 TAXMAN 706 (DELHI!: Once it is established that there is a nexus between expenditure and purpose of business, revenue…

M/S. SENTIA POWER LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…n of the business and a host of other related circumstances. The rule that increased remuneration can only be justified if there be corresponding increase in the profits of the employer is, in our judgment, erroneous." iv) CIT v. Oracle India fP.l Ltd. f2011) 243 CTR 103 (Delhi!: It was held that revenue cannot sit in arm's chair of Assessee and decide as to how affairs of business were to be run and wasteful or excessive expenditure was to be curtailed v) CIT v. Dalmia Cement IP.l Ltd f20021 121 TAXMAN 706 (DELHI!: Once it is established that there is a nexus between expenditure and purpose of business, revenue…

Delhi in CIT v. Oracle India (P) Ltd. (243 CTR 103) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax