Delhi in Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. v. ACIT

386 ITR 665High Court2016#8636 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Delhi in Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. v. ACIT

M/S RITTAL INDIA PVT LTD ,DODDABALLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2868/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniam, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…the order passed u/s 92CA I of the Act is nullity and cannot be the basis to make the impugned addition in the draft assessment order. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd., Vs ACIT 386 ITR 665 wherein it was held that Circular No.3 of 2016 is retrospective in operation and applied to all pending cases and even to a case where reference was made earlier prior to the issue of Circular. The assessee also relied on the decisions wherein it as laid down that selection of a case for scrutiny contrary to Instructions of CDBT would make the as…

MAPEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

…the reference to the TPO is bad in law. The learned TPO gets jurisdiction only if there is a valid reference u/s. 92CA of the Act. 10.4. The assessee relies on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indorama Synthetics (India) Limited Vs. Additional CIT 386 ITR 665, wherein at page 678, paragraph 22, it was held that the instruction no. 3 of 2016 is retrospective in operation and applies to all pending cases and even to a case where reference was made earlier prior to the issue of circular. The assessee relies on the following decisions wherein it was held that selection of a case for scrutiny contrary to t…

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1067/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…orrect or not. However, the TPO went beyond his powers and came to a finding that 97% of world’s profits were to be taxed in India. He then, referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 665 (Del). He stressed that the Hon’ble High court has laid down that in the absence of any audit report in Form 3CEB and where the assessee does not claim the transactions to be international transactions, then sections 92C(3) and 92C(4) of the Act come into play and the Assessing Officer is duty bound to give opportunity. Reference was also made to…

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1066/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…orrect or not. However, the TPO went beyond his powers and came to a finding that 97% of world’s profits were to be taxed in India. He then, referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 665 (Del). He stressed that the Hon’ble High court has laid down that in the absence of any audit report in Form 3CEB and where the assessee does not claim the transactions to be international transactions, then sections 92C(3) and 92C(4) of the Act come into play and the Assessing Officer is duty bound to give opportunity. Reference was also made to…

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1065/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…orrect or not. However, the TPO went beyond his powers and came to a finding that 97% of world’s profits were to be taxed in India. He then, referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 665 (Del). He stressed that the Hon’ble High court has laid down that in the absence of any audit report in Form 3CEB and where the assessee does not claim the transactions to be international transactions, then sections 92C(3) and 92C(4) of the Act come into play and the Assessing Officer is duty bound to give opportunity. Reference was also made to…

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1064/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…orrect or not. However, the TPO went beyond his powers and came to a finding that 97% of world’s profits were to be taxed in India. He then, referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 665 (Del). He stressed that the Hon’ble High court has laid down that in the absence of any audit report in Form 3CEB and where the assessee does not claim the transactions to be international transactions, then sections 92C(3) and 92C(4) of the Act come into play and the Assessing Officer is duty bound to give opportunity. Reference was also made to…

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1063/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…orrect or not. However, the TPO went beyond his powers and came to a finding that 97% of world’s profits were to be taxed in India. He then, referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 665 (Del). He stressed that the Hon’ble High court has laid down that in the absence of any audit report in Form 3CEB and where the assessee does not claim the transactions to be international transactions, then sections 92C(3) and 92C(4) of the Act come into play and the Assessing Officer is duty bound to give opportunity. Reference was also made to…

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1062/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…orrect or not. However, the TPO went beyond his powers and came to a finding that 97% of world’s profits were to be taxed in India. He then, referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 665 (Del). He stressed that the Hon’ble High court has laid down that in the absence of any audit report in Form 3CEB and where the assessee does not claim the transactions to be international transactions, then sections 92C(3) and 92C(4) of the Act come into play and the Assessing Officer is duty bound to give opportunity. Reference was also made to…

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 832/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92B

…arrived at by the Assessing Officer regarding the existence of the international transaction for making the reference to the TPO. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court case of Indo- Rama synthetics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 665 (DEL) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has rejected revenues contention that CBDT instruction 3/2016 dated March 10, 2016 which was replaced by instruction 15/2015 specifically lays down procedure to be followed by Assessing Officer making TPO reference prospective. The Hon’ble High Court has held that the instruction clarifies the correct legal po…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1052/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92B

…arrived at by the Assessing Officer regarding the existence of the international transaction for making the reference to the TPO. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court case of Indo- Rama synthetics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 665 (DEL) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has rejected revenues contention that CBDT instruction 3/2016 dated March 10, 2016 which was replaced by instruction 15/2015 specifically lays down procedure to be followed by Assessing Officer making TPO reference prospective. The Hon’ble High Court has held that the instruction clarifies the correct legal po…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2275/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92B

…arrived at by the Assessing Officer regarding the existence of the international transaction for making the reference to the TPO. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court case of Indo- Rama synthetics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 665 (DEL) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has rejected revenues contention that CBDT instruction 3/2016 dated March 10, 2016 which was replaced by instruction 15/2015 specifically lays down procedure to be followed by Assessing Officer making TPO reference prospective. The Hon’ble High Court has held that the instruction clarifies the correct legal po…

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1405/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92B

…arrived at by the Assessing Officer regarding the existence of the international transaction for making the reference to the TPO. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court case of Indo- Rama synthetics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 665 (DEL) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has rejected revenues contention that CBDT instruction 3/2016 dated March 10, 2016 which was replaced by instruction 15/2015 specifically lays down procedure to be followed by Assessing Officer making TPO reference prospective. The Hon’ble High Court has held that the instruction clarifies the correct legal po…

LOUIS VUITTON INDIA RETAIL PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 775/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri Gaurav GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Jain, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Louis Vuitton India Retail P. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 901-A, Ninth Floor, Circle-1(2)(1), Time Tower, Mumbai. Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. PAN: AAACL8230E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri Gaurav Gupta & Shri Ankit Sahin, Advocates Department By : Shri Peeyush Jain, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 28.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : .03.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is direct…