LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

140 ITD 41Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#1007 most cited

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

The Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer can benchmark Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses as an international transaction if it creates or is intended to create economic or commercial benefit for an associated enterprise. The 'bright line' method can be used for this purpose.

107

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT · 140 ITD 41 · AMP expenses · international transaction · section 92B · section 92F · bright line method · benchmarking · associated enterprise

Sections most often in play

Section 1938Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92CA(1)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 1999

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expendituresection 92(1)comparable uncontrolled price methodcost plus methodsection 92ffunctional analysissection 92c(3)section 80jjasection 80jjaamanagement feesbenchmarking analysis

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

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No. 1334/CHANDI/2010, 1203/ CHANDI /2011, 2511/DEL/2013, 1044/DEL/2014 & 4516/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt vs. Additional Commissioner Ltd, of Income TaX, Range 1, (erstwhile M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt. Chandigarh Ltd.), Level 3-6, Pioneer Square, Sector- 62, Near Golf Course EXtension Road, Gurugram, Haryana - 122101 TAN/PAN: AAACP 1272G (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.As. No. 4517/DEL/2016, 4518/DEL/2016, 6537/DE…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No. 1334/CHANDI/2010, 1203/ CHANDI /2011, 2511/DEL/2013, 1044/DEL/2014 & 4516/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt vs. Additional Commissioner Ltd, of Income TaX, Range 1, (erstwhile M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt. Chandigarh Ltd.), Level 3-6, Pioneer Square, Sector- 62, Near Golf Course EXtension Road, Gurugram, Haryana - 122101 TAN/PAN: AAACP 1272G (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.As. No. 4517/DEL/2016, 4518/DEL/2016, 6537/DE…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No. 1334/CHANDI/2010, 1203/ CHANDI /2011, 2511/DEL/2013, 1044/DEL/2014 & 4516/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt vs. Additional Commissioner Ltd, of Income TaX, Range 1, (erstwhile M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt. Chandigarh Ltd.), Level 3-6, Pioneer Square, Sector- 62, Near Golf Course EXtension Road, Gurugram, Haryana - 122101 TAN/PAN: AAACP 1272G (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.As. No. 4517/DEL/2016, 4518/DEL/2016, 6537/DE…

M/S. Pepsi Foods Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No. 1334/CHANDI/2010, 1203/ CHANDI /2011, 2511/DEL/2013, 1044/DEL/2014 & 4516/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt vs. Additional Commissioner Ltd, of Income TaX, Range 1, (erstwhile M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt. Chandigarh Ltd.), Level 3-6, Pioneer Square, Sector- 62, Near Golf Course EXtension Road, Gurugram, Haryana - 122101 TAN/PAN: AAACP 1272G (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.As. No. 4517/DEL/2016, 4518/DEL/2016, 6537/DE…

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2511/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Mr. H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 145ASection 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No. 1334/CHANDI/2010, 1203/ CHANDI /2011, 2511/DEL/2013, 1044/DEL/2014 & 4516/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt vs. Additional Commissioner Ltd, of Income TaX, Range 1, (erstwhile M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt. Chandigarh Ltd.), Level 3-6, Pioneer Square, Sector- 62, Near Golf Course EXtension Road, Gurugram, Haryana - 122101 TAN/PAN: AAACP 1272G (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.As. No. 4517/DEL/2016, 4518/DEL/2016, 6537/DE…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1906/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

…P adjustment of Rs 6,64,70,841. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in grievance before the Dispute Resolution Panel but without any success. Following the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal, in the case of LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT [(2013) 140 ITD 41 (Del)], the DRP confirmed the stand at the assessment stage. The Assessing Officer thus proceeded to make the impugned adjustment of Rs 6,64,70,841, aggrieved by which the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Learned counsel’s basic thrust of arguments is that there is no material whatsoever on record to suggest that there was an international tra…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3613/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…rketing and sales promotion (AMP) expenses. Here, it is pertinent to mention that a Special Bench was constituted on this issue in this very appeal. An order dated 23.1.2013 has since been passed by the Special Bench as LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 140 ITD 41 (Del) (SB). Two questions were referred to the Special Bench. The first question has been answered by holding that the transfer pricing adjustment in relation to the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for creating or improving the marketing intangibles for and on behalf of its foreign associated enterprises, is permissible. The second question…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3612/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…rketing and sales promotion (AMP) expenses. Here, it is pertinent to mention that a Special Bench was constituted on this issue in this very appeal. An order dated 23.1.2013 has since been passed by the Special Bench as LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 140 ITD 41 (Del) (SB). Two questions were referred to the Special Bench. The first question has been answered by holding that the transfer pricing adjustment in relation to the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee for creating or improving the marketing intangibles for and on behalf of its foreign associated enterprises, is permissible. The second question…

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

…has not followed any specific method as 2006-07 is the first year, the matter could be restored to TPO to decide it afresh after considering the guidelines laid down by Special Bench (Delhi) in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2013]140 ITD 41/29 taxmann.com 300. He submitted that the AE, parent company of the assessee should reimburse the expenses as assessee company has created brand in India which is owned by parent company by incurring the expenditure. 40. We have considered the order of the TPO/AO and the submissions of ld. Representatives of the parties. We observe that the TPO ha…

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

…has not followed any specific method as 2006-07 is the first year, the matter could be restored to TPO to decide it afresh after considering the guidelines laid down by Special Bench (Delhi) in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2013]140 ITD 41/29 taxmann.com 300. He submitted that the AE, parent company of the assessee should reimburse the expenses as assessee company has created brand in India which is owned by parent company by incurring the expenditure. 40. We have considered the order of the TPO/AO and the submissions of ld. Representatives of the parties. We observe that the TPO ha…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed”

ITA 2578/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 44

…26.12.2014; ii) SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s JCIT, ITA no.3800, 3801 & 1501/Mum/2008, order dated 23.5.2014; iii) ACIT v/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., ITA no.3004/Mum/2012, dated 20.9.2013; iv) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s ACIT, 140 ITD 41; v) Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.602/Mum/2009, dated 9.9.2010; vi) M/s. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.3115/Del./2013, dated 1.3.2016; vii) General Insurance Corp. of India v/s ACIT, ITA no.3554/Mum/ 2011, order dated 15.2.2010; viii) JCIT v/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., ITA no.3085/ Mum./20…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1835/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 145C(5)Section 92BSection 92F

…44C(2) of the Act, on 01/05/2014. The findings of the DRP in its order dated 30.12.2014 are summarized as under: 11 (a) Transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP Expenses – Following Special Bench decision in case of LG Electronics India Ltd. reported in 140 ITD 41(Del)(SB), DRP held that there existed an “international transaction” as per provision of section 92B and a “transaction” as per provisions of section 92F between the applicant and its AE for brand promotion. DRP also upheld the action of TPO in applying Transfer pricing provision in benchmarking the alleged transaction of brand promotion of market…

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

…ier disposed of by the Tribunal vide its orders dated 13.12.2013 and restoring the computation of ALP of AMP expenses to the ld. TPO to be decided in accordance with the Special Bench decision in the case of LG Electronics India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 140 ITD 41/29 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi - Trib.). The assessee and revenue appealed against the Tribunal order before Hon’ble High court. ITA No. 5611/Del/2012 AY: 2007-8 and 20008-09 3. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has disposed of the appeals of the parties in a batch of appeals with the leading order in Sony Ericson Mobile Communication (India) (P.)…

Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 891/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year : 2009-10 Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 15(1), 7Th Floor, Tower 9B, New Delhi. Vs. Dlf Cyber Greens, Gurgaon. Pan : Aaacb 2586 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 21(1), 7Th Floor, Tower 9B, New Delhi. Vs. Dlf Cyber Greens, Gurgaon. Pan : Aaacb 2586 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. M. Shivakumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…on'ble Court has specifically referred to the paragraphs 3 and 4 of order of Hon'ble ITAT to arrive at its conclusion. Perusal of the said two paragraphs reveal that the decision in was mainly based upon application of the ratio in the case of LG Electronics (140 ITD 41) (SB) to the appellant's facts. 2. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi considered the decision of the Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India (140 ITD 41) in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (reported in 374 ITR 118) and held AMP to be an International Transaction. However, the Bright Line Test (BLT) was not appr…

Christain Dior Trading India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1045/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Tilak
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “K”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1045/Mum/2014 for (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s Christian Dior Trading India DCIT-2(3), Room No. 561, 5th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. 101-104, First Floor, Banaji House, Flora Fountain, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AACCC7150L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.1084/Mum/2014 for (Assessment Year : 2009-10) DCIT-2(1), M/s Christian Dior Trading India Room No. 561, 5th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. 101-104, First Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Banaji House, Flora Fountai…

Nippon Paint India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 779/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.779/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: Mr.Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92C(1)

…o using the Bright Line Test as envisaged by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. ACIT [(2010) 192 Taxman 317 (Delhi)] and Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT ([2013] 140 ITD 41 (Delhi) (SB)]. The above rulings have been nullified or over ruled in the subsequent cases. In the subsequent decision of the Maruti Suzuki, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has ruled in favour of the assessee. The case of LG Electronics was overruled by Delhi High Court and the other High Courts. Sec.92C of the Act provides that ALP of international…

Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA/350/2014HC Delhi25 Oct 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 144C(13)Section 260

…ere fact that the overall profit earned by the assessee is more, would not ipso facto lead to the interference then all the international transactions are at ALP. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 2013 140 ITD 41 (Delhi) (SB) has held to this extent. Thus, the approach so adopted by the assessee in combining so many international transaction for determining ALP on a consolidated basis, is incorrect. 7. The next major flaw in the assessee's calculation is that it took into consideration the 'Projected operating profit margin' to show that its inte…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 1035/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 44

…itted that the issues raised by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal are squarely covered by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench in the following cases:- Sr.No. Particulars (i) ICICI Prudential Insurance Company Limited v ACIT, Circle 6(1), Mumbai [2013] 140 ITD 41 (Mumbai Tribunal) (ii) HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited v DCIT (OSD)-1(1) –ITA No. 2203/Mum/2012 and Others 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 8. After considering the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, we agree with Ld. Counsel that all…

Icici Lombard General Insurance Comapny Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, by following the orders of this Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the ground is allowed”

ITA 3712/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh: (A.Y : 2008-09) Dcit-10(1), Vs. M/S. Icici Lombard General Mumbai (Appellant) Insurance Co. Ltd., 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. Pan : Aaaci7904G (Respondent) : (A.Y : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 44

…and considered the relevant material on record. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that Rule 14A is not applicable in the case of Insurance Company. She has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT 140 ITD 41. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that when the income is non-assessable to tax being exempt then the provisions of section 14A shall be applied. This issue has been considered and decided by the Tribunal in case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT (supra) in para 46 as under: “46. This issue is already decided by the Coordi…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, by following the orders of this Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the ground is allowed”

ITA 3698/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh: (A.Y : 2008-09) Dcit-10(1), Vs. M/S. Icici Lombard General Mumbai (Appellant) Insurance Co. Ltd., 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. Pan : Aaaci7904G (Respondent) : (A.Y : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 44

…and considered the relevant material on record. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that Rule 14A is not applicable in the case of Insurance Company. She has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT 140 ITD 41. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that when the income is non-assessable to tax being exempt then the provisions of section 14A shall be applied. This issue has been considered and decided by the Tribunal in case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT (supra) in para 46 as under: “46. This issue is already decided by the Coordi…