LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

29 Taxmann.com 300High Court2013#3178 most cited

What is LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

The 'bright line test' is not an appropriate method for determining the existence of an international transaction for calculating arm's length price. This ruling overrules prior special bench decisions on AMP expenses.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT · AMP expenses · international transaction · bright line test · arm's length price · transfer pricing · section 92 · Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd vs. CIT · over ruled

Sections most often in play

Section 194CSection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expendituresection 92(1)cost plus methodcomparable uncontrolled price methodfunctional analysissection 92c(3)section 80jjasection 92fsection 80jjaamanagement feestested party

Judgments citing LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

M/S. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3727/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B New Delhi Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaaca5313P Ay: 2007-08 Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144CSection 92C

…ITA 29/Del/14 AY 2008-09 Adidas India Marketing P Ltd. well as DRP treated AMP expenses as international transaction by applying ratio laid down by Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 300, which stands over ruled by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 240. Hon’ble Court while deciding Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd (supra) categorically held that Bright Line Test is not an appropriate yardstick for determining existence of an international transact…

M/S. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B New Delhi Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaaca5313P Ay: 2007-08 Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144CSection 92C

…ITA 29/Del/14 AY 2008-09 Adidas India Marketing P Ltd. well as DRP treated AMP expenses as international transaction by applying ratio laid down by Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 300, which stands over ruled by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 240. Hon’ble Court while deciding Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd (supra) categorically held that Bright Line Test is not an appropriate yardstick for determining existence of an international transact…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B New Delhi Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaaca5313P Ay: 2007-08 Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144CSection 92C

…ITA 29/Del/14 AY 2008-09 Adidas India Marketing P Ltd. well as DRP treated AMP expenses as international transaction by applying ratio laid down by Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 300, which stands over ruled by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 240. Hon’ble Court while deciding Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd (supra) categorically held that Bright Line Test is not an appropriate yardstick for determining existence of an international transact…

Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 85/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Moet Hennessy India Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 5(1), Unit No.1903, Tower 2, 19Th Floor, New Delhi. Indiabulls Financial Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400 013. (Pan : Aaccm4079L) (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Mangal, Advocate Shri Saksham Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms. Nimita Pandey, Senior Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date Of Order : 09.04.2019 O R D E R Per Kuldip Singh:

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mangal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Moet Hennessy India Private Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 5(1), Unit No.1903, Tower 2, 19th Floor, New Delhi. Indiabulls Financial Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400 013. (PAN : AACCM4079L) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sumit Mangal, Advocate Shri Saksham Singhal, CA REVENUE BY : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR Ms. Nimita Pandey, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date of Order : 09.04.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, J…

M/S Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 996/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Yakult Danone India P Ltd. D.C.I.T. Circle 27(1) 16, 1St Floor Vs. New Delhi Community Centre Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I New Delhi

Section 143Section 144CSection 92BSection 92CSection 92F

…und No. 2-11 are regarding adjustment of Rs. 6.95 crores made on account of AMP expenses. He submitted that Ld.TPO applied bright line test, which was originally sanctioned by Special Bench of this Tribunal in case of LG Electronics vs ACIT reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 300. He submitted that said approach has been overruled by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra). Ld.Counsel argued that, bright line test method is not the prescribed method under Indian Income Tax laws. 4.1. Ld.Counsel submitted that, assessee incur…

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

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 7691/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application no. 475-476/Del/2018 (Arising out of ITA no. 1811 & 7691/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, New Delhi E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 Assessment Year : 20…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application no. 475-476/Del/2018 (Arising out of ITA no. 1811 & 7691/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, New Delhi E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 Assessment Year : 20…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1662/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application no. 475-476/Del/2018 (Arising out of ITA no. 1811 & 7691/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, New Delhi E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 Assessment Year : 20…

Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Ltu, Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment

ITA 8273/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…pplying bright line test. It is observed that Ld.TPO as well as DRP treated AMP expenses as international transaction by applying ratio laid down by Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 300, which stands over ruled by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 240. Hon’ble Court while deciding Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd (supra) categorically held that bright line test is not an appropriate yardstick for determining existence of an international transact…

Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Ltu, Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment

ITA 8272/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…pplying bright line test. It is observed that Ld.TPO as well as DRP treated AMP expenses as international transaction by applying ratio laid down by Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 300, which stands over ruled by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 240. Hon’ble Court while deciding Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd (supra) categorically held that bright line test is not an appropriate yardstick for determining existence of an international transact…

Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 7085/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…pplying bright line test. It is observed that Ld.TPO as well as DRP treated AMP expenses as international transaction by applying ratio laid down by Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 300, which stands over ruled by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 240. Hon’ble Court while deciding Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd (supra) categorically held that bright line test is not an appropriate yardstick for determining existence of an international transact…

M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 1787/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…pplying bright line test. It is observed that Ld.TPO as well as DRP treated AMP expenses as international transaction by applying ratio laid down by Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 300, which stands over ruled by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 240. Hon’ble Court while deciding Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd (supra) categorically held that bright line test is not an appropriate yardstick for determining existence of an international transact…

M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 1972/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…pplying bright line test. It is observed that Ld.TPO as well as DRP treated AMP expenses as international transaction by applying ratio laid down by Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 300, which stands over ruled by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 240. Hon’ble Court while deciding Sony Ericson India Pvt.Ltd (supra) categorically held that bright line test is not an appropriate yardstick for determining existence of an international transact…

Asst CIT 10(3) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6073/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…ITA Nos.6073/Mum/2014 & 2778/Mum/2011 CO.Nos.243/Mum/2014 & 126/Mum/2011 Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “के” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी महावीर िसंह,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (OSD) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,…

ACIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palm Olive (I) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2778/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…ITA Nos.6073/Mum/2014 & 2778/Mum/2011 CO.Nos.243/Mum/2014 & 126/Mum/2011 Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “के” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी महावीर िसंह,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (OSD) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,…

M/S. Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5611/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd, Circle-3(1), Vs. 210, Okhla Industrial Estate New Delhi (First Floor), Okhla Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan:Aaacc3448H (Appellant) (Respondent) Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 210, Okhla Industrial Estate (First Vs. Circle-3(1), Floor), Okhla Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc3448H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. TM Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 92B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT, Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd, Circle-3(1), Vs. 210, Okhla Industrial Estate New Delhi (First Floor), Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi PAN:AAACC3448H (Appellant) (Respondent) Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd, DCIT, 210, Okhla Industrial Estate (First Vs. Circle-3(1), Floor), Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAACC3448H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv Revenue by: Sh. TM Shivakumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04/01/2017 Date of pronouncement 03/…

Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 789/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.789/Del./2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Nikon India (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-3 Plot No. 17, Sec-32, Gurgaon. Institutional Area Gurgaon. (Pan No: Aaccn5100F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Mukesh Butani & Gourav Gupta, Advocates S/Shri Suchint Majmuder & Nipun Arora, Cas Revenue By : Shri Anurag Sharma, Senior Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2015 O R D E R Per A.T. Varkey: This Appeal By The Assessee Under Section 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Directed Against The Final Order Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) / Assessing Officer (Ao) On 05.01.2015 U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: S/Shri Mukesh Butani & Gourav Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sharma, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.789/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/s. Nikon India (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle-3 Plot No. 17, Sec-32, Gurgaon. Institutional Area GURGAON. (PAN NO: AACCN5100F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri Mukesh Butani & Gourav Gupta, Advocates S/Shri Suchint Majmuder & Nipun Arora, CAs REVENUE BY : Shri Anurag Sharma, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2015 O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal b…

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (29 Taxmann.com 300) — Cited in 37 Judgments | BharatTax