Drilbits International (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

142 TTJ 86Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#14904 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing Drilbits International (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

…ase on hand, as discussed and laid out above, we are of the view that CPM cannot be considered as the MAM. In coming to this view, we are fortified by the decision of the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Drilbits International (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2011] 142 TTJ 86, wherein on similar facts and circumstances, it was held that gross profit mark up on domestic sales cannot be compared with gross profit on export sales to AE, reasonably accurate adjustments cannot be made to eliminate the differences between the domestic sale; export sales and consequently CPM cannot be considered as the MAM; and in this regard…

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 303/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A No.303/Bang/2021 & SP No.64/Bang/2021 M/s. The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.303/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly known as The Himalaya Drug Company) JCIT (OSD) Makali, Tumkur Road Vs. Circle-6(1)(1) Bengaluru 562 162 Bengaluru PAN NO : AADFT3025B APPELLANT RESPONDENT S.P. No.64/Bang/2021 (Arising out of IT(TP)A No.303/Bang/2021) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly known as The…

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2434/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ase on hand, as discussed and laid out above, we are of the view that CPM cannot be considered as the MAM. In coming to this view, we are fortified by the decision of the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Drilbits International (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2011] 142 TTJ 86, wherein on similar facts and circumstances, it was held that gross profit mark up on domestic sales cannot be compared with gross profit on export sales to AE, reasonably accurate adjustments cannot be made to eliminate the differences between the domestic sale; export sales and consequently CPM cannot be considered as the MAM; and in this regard…

The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3071/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)

…ase on hand, as discussed and laid out above, we are of the view that CPM cannot be considered as the MAM. In coming to this view, we are fortified by the decision of the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Drilbits International (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2011] 142 TTJ 86, wherein on similar facts and circumstances, it was held that gross profit mark up on domestic sales cannot be compared with gross profit on export sales to AE, reasonably accurate adjustments cannot be made to eliminate the differences between the domestic sale; export sales and IT(TP)A No.3071/Bang/2018 The Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore Page…

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2248/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 156

…ase on hand, as discussed and laid out above, we are of the view that CPM cannot be considered as the MAM. In coming to this view, we are fortified by the decision of the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Drilbits International (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2011] 142 TTJ 86, wherein on similar facts and circumstances, it was held that gross profit mark up on domestic sales cannot be compared with gross profit on export sales to AE, reasonably accurate adjustments cannot be made to eliminate the differences between the domestic sale; export sales and consequently CPM cannot be considered as the MAM; and in this regard…

M/S the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 187/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2010-11 M/s. The Himalaya Drug Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Company, of Income-Tax, Makali, Central Circle – 1(1), Bangalore – 562 162. Bangalore. PAN : AADFT 3025 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CA Revenue by : Smt. Susan D. George, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 06.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against…

Drilbits International (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (142 TTJ 86) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax