Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

47 SOT 423Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#4361 most cited

What is Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT authority for?

The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) must determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of services and is not responsible for deciding whether a service was actually rendered or benefited the assessee; this latter determination is within the purview of the Assessing Officer (AO). The TPO's assessment of ALP should not be based on the perception that the assessee did not need the services due to existing internal expertise.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT · 47 SOT 423 · Transfer Pricing Officer · Assessing Officer · Arm's Length Price · ALP · Cost contribution arrangement · services rendered · benefit to assessee

Judgments citing Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

M/S Ther Structural Waterproofing Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 112/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.112/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Chryso India Private Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Limited (Formerly Known As ‘The Structural Waterproofing Company Private Limited’) Plot No.D-30/7, Ttc Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee M.I.D.C, Turbhe, Navi Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Mumbai-400 705 (Maharashtra) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabct 0878 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…n’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs EKL Appliances Ltd (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del) ; CIT vs Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) and co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd vsAddl CIT (2011) 47 SOT 423 (Mum) and applied the principles emanating out of those judgements and applied the same to the facts of the case in Bata India Ltd. In the said case (i.e Bata India Ltd supra) it was observed as under:- 27. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.[2012] 345 ITR 241/24 taxmann.com 199/209 Taxman 200 as well as CIT…

M/S. Philips India Limited (Formerly Philips Electronics India Litd.), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2489/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s Philips India Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [PAN: AABCP 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order of the ACIT Circle-12(2), Kolkata,…

M/S Phillips India Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 612/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

…n’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs EKL Appliances Ltd (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del) ; CIT vs Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) and co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd vsAddl CIT (2011) 47 SOT 423 (Mum) and applied the principles emanating out of those judgements and applied the same to the facts of the case in Bata India Ltd. In the said case (i.e Bata India Ltd supra) it was observed as under:- 27. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.[2012] 345 ITR 241/24 taxmann.com 199/209 Taxman 200 as well as CIT…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Philips India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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

…’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs EKL Appliances Ltd (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del) ; CIT vs Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) and co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd vs Addl CIT (2011) 47 SOT 423 (Mum) and applied the principles emanating out of those judgements and applied the same to the facts of the case in Bata India Ltd. In the said case (i.e Bata India Ltd supra) it was observed as under:- 27. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.[2012] 345 ITR 241/24 taxmann.com 199/209 Taxman 200 as well as CIT v…

M/S Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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

…’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs EKL Appliances Ltd (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del) ; CIT vs Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P) Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 730 (Del) and co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd vs Addl CIT (2011) 47 SOT 423 (Mum) and applied the principles emanating out of those judgements and applied the same to the facts of the case in Bata India Ltd. In the said case (i.e Bata India Ltd supra) it was observed as under:- 27. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.[2012] 345 ITR 241/24 taxmann.com 199/209 Taxman 200 as well as CIT v…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground, no

ITA 6282/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

…alysis to determine the ALP and not to determine whether there is a service or not from which the assessee benefits. That aspect of the exercise is left to the AO. This distinction was made clear by the ITAT in Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 47 SOT 423/13 taxmann.com 82 (Mum.): "8. We find that the basic reason of the Transfer Pricing Officer's determination of ALP of the services received under cost contribution arrangement as 'NIL' is his perception that the assessee did not need these services at all, as the assessee had sufficient experts of his own who were competent enough to do Page 63 of…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground, no

ITA 5882/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

…alysis to determine the ALP and not to determine whether there is a service or not from which the assessee benefits. That aspect of the exercise is left to the AO. This distinction was made clear by the ITAT in Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 47 SOT 423/13 taxmann.com 82 (Mum.): "8. We find that the basic reason of the Transfer Pricing Officer's determination of ALP of the services received under cost contribution arrangement as 'NIL' is his perception that the assessee did not need these services at all, as the assessee had sufficient experts of his own who were competent enough to do Page 63 of…