Limited v. DY CIT

131 ITD 215Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#16708 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing Limited v. DY CIT

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. GI GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is treated as allowed for

ITA 1157/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: None

…reciation to 15%. It has been repeatedly held in various decisions of the Tribunal that depreciation @ 60% has to be provided on UPS treating it to be the part of computer. This issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Haworth. (India) Pvt. Ltd., 131 ITD 215 (Delhi) and Macawber Engg. Systems {India} (P). Ltd., 19 ITR (Trib.} {Mum) 302 wherein it has been held that UPS is an integral part of the computer. This view has been consistently followed by the Tribunal in various other appeals. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation @…

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 6912/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(2)

…nt cannot be made to the margin of the tested party and if at all any adjustment has to be made it has to be made in case of comparables. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in Haworth (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2011] 131 ITD 215 (Del.). Learned Departmental Representative submitted, though, it is the first year of operation of investment banking activity, however, the assessee must have leveraged on the existing client relationship from investment advisory to seek mandate for investment banking. He submitted, the skill set required for investment advisory and investment…

RADASHIR JEWELLERY CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7066/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7066/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Radhashir Jewellery Co.Pvt. Ltd. Acit , Circle-8(3) Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road Army Navy Press Building, Plot No.118 Road No.18, Midc Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 093. Pan:Aadcr 2944 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri Inder Solanki Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.05.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.07.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order Dated 11.09.2013 Of The Cit(A)-15,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing/Exporting Diamond Studded Jewellery, Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.09.2009.During The Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Entered Into Following International Transactions (It.S) With Its Associate Enterprises(Ae.S): Sn. Transaction Amount(Rs.) Method 1 Tnmm Sale Of Diamond Studded Jewellery (Receipt) 16,31,34,795/- 2 Purchase Of Cut & Polished Diamond (Paid) 90,46,660/- Tnmm 3 Purchase Of Findings (Paid) 8,20,390/- Tnmm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Inder Solanki
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…tative(DR)supported the order of the FAA and stated that the FAA had extensively dealt with the issue of under utilization of capacity of the assessee .He referred to the case of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal delivered in the case of Haworth (India) P. Ltd.(131 ITD 215). 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the assessee had started its business for the year under appeal,that the TPO/AO made adjustment of Rs.3.59 Crores,that it had argued before the FAA that benefit of underutilisation of capacity should be allowed before making any adjustment. 5.1It is a fact th…

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AT KEARNEY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

ITA 5575/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, At Kearney Ltd, Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, 357, H-9, Vardhman Vs. Room No. 204, Corporate Plaza, Drum Shape Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan:Aadca0861H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. M. Govil, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 92

…tal income it has not been claimed as expenditure and therefore it has rightly been excluded from the working of the total cost by the assessee. We draw support from the decision of coordinate bench in Haworth (India) ( P ) Limited V DY CIT 11 taxmann.com 76 [131 ITD 215] ( Delhi) which held that amounts suo-moto disallowed by the assessee cannot form part of PLI while determining ALP. Hence, we confirm the findings of ld CIT (A). In view of above we hold that the ld AO has incorrectly increased the total cost by making adjustment on account of write back of provision for bad & doubtful debts of Rs. 36672464/- an…

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AT KEARNEY LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

ITA 5574/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, At Kearney Ltd, Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, 357, H-9, Vardhman Vs. Room No. 204, Corporate Plaza, Drum Shape Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan:Aadca0861H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. M. Govil, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 92

…tal income it has not been claimed as expenditure and therefore it has rightly been excluded from the working of the total cost by the assessee. We draw support from the decision of coordinate bench in Haworth (India) ( P ) Limited V DY CIT 11 taxmann.com 76 [131 ITD 215] ( Delhi) which held that amounts suo-moto disallowed by the assessee cannot form part of PLI while determining ALP. Hence, we confirm the findings of ld CIT (A). In view of above we hold that the ld AO has incorrectly increased the total cost by making adjustment on account of write back of provision for bad & doubtful debts of Rs. 36672464/- an…

Limited v. DY CIT (131 ITD 215) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax