M/s. Technimont ICB P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

138 ITD 23Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#5410 most cited

What is M/s. Technimont ICB P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT authority for?

The credit period offered in an invoice with an associated enterprise cannot be considered a comparable in the transfer pricing regime as it is a controlled transaction and lacks arm's length characteristics.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Technimont ICB P. Ltd. · Addl. CIT · 138 ITD 23 · transfer pricing · associated enterprise · credit period · controlled transaction · arm's length characteristic · international transaction

Issues it is cited on

interest on outstanding receivablesweighted deductionsection 35(2ab)corporate guaranteesection 92bsection 35transfer pricing adjustmentinternational transactionfinal assessment ordersection 92double taxationdraft assessment order

Judgments citing M/s. Technimont ICB P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle -5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 509/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ued that the credit period as per the invoice with the AE cannot be contemplated as a comparable in TP regime as it is a controlled transaction and lacks arm’s length characteristic as held by the ITAT in the case of M/s. Technimont ICB P. Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT 138 ITD 23 (Mum); whereas apart from placing reliance on the view taken by the learned DRP for the assessment year 2018-19 which became final, the learned AR also placed reliance on a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Indo American jewellery Ltd in ITA No. 5872/mum/2009 for the principle that if an entity is engaged in comm…

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 352/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 352/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Adv. B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav,CIT( DR)
Section 35Section 92B

…ued that the credit period as per the invoice with the AE cannot be contemplated as a comparable in TP regime as it is a controlled transaction and lacks arm’s length characteristic as held by the ITAT in the case of M/s. Technimont ICB P. Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT 138 ITD 23 (Mum); whereas apart from placing reliance on the view taken by the learned DRP for the assessment year 2018-19 which became final, the learned AR also placed reliance on a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Indo American jewellery Ltd in ITA No. 5872/mum/2009 for the principle that if an entity is engaged in comm…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 321/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 352/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Adv. B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav,CIT( DR)
Section 35Section 92B

…ued that the credit period as per the invoice with the AE cannot be contemplated as a comparable in TP regime as it is a controlled transaction and lacks arm’s length characteristic as held by the ITAT in the case of M/s. Technimont ICB P. Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT 138 ITD 23 (Mum); whereas apart from placing reliance on the view taken by the learned DRP for the assessment year 2018-19 which became final, the learned AR also placed reliance on a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Indo American jewellery Ltd in ITA No. 5872/mum/2009 for the principle that if an entity is engaged in comm…

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad Knowledge City vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 351/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 320/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7366H] आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 351/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabca7366H अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri M Vijay Kumar, Cit(Dr) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Bg Reddy

For Appellant: Advocate BG ReddyFor Respondent: Shri M Vijay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 35

…ued that the credit period as per the invoice with the AE cannot be contemplated as a comparable in TP regime as it is a controlled transaction and lacks arm’s length characteristic as held by the ITAT in the case of M/s. Technimont ICB P. Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT 138 ITD 23 (Mum); whereas apart from placing reliance on the view taken by the learned DRP for the assessment year 2018-19 which became final, the learned AR also placed reliance on a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Indo American jewellery Ltd in ITA No. 5872/mum/2009 for the principle that if an en"ty is engaged in comme…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 320/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 320/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7366H] आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 351/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabca7366H अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri M Vijay Kumar, Cit(Dr) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Bg Reddy

For Appellant: Advocate BG ReddyFor Respondent: Shri M Vijay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 35

…ued that the credit period as per the invoice with the AE cannot be contemplated as a comparable in TP regime as it is a controlled transaction and lacks arm’s length characteristic as held by the ITAT in the case of M/s. Technimont ICB P. Ltd., vs. Addl. CIT 138 ITD 23 (Mum); whereas apart from placing reliance on the view taken by the learned DRP for the assessment year 2018-19 which became final, the learned AR also placed reliance on a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Indo American jewellery Ltd in ITA No. 5872/mum/2009 for the principle that if an en"ty is engaged in comme…

Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Jalgaon

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 227/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 92D

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “C” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.227/PUN/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. PAN: AAACJ 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari and Ms.MonicaMulchandani – AR’s Revenue by Shri B Koteswara Rao – DR Date of hearing 23/09/2022 Date of pron…

Schneider Electric Infrastructure Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Add./Jt. DCIT/ITO Natonal E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 64/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Schneider Electric Infrastructure D.C.I.T, Limited, Vs Circle-2(1)(1), Milestone 87, Vadodara Halol Vadodara. Highway, Village Kotambi, Po Jaroad, Vadodara-391510 Pan : Aapcs 6078 Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92D

…World (Subcontinent) (P.) Ltd. v Asstt. CIT [2011] 12 taxmann.com 310/47 SOT 1 (Delhi) - held that preference should be given to internal comparison. 10.17 In the latest order of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Tecnimont ICB (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 138 ITD 23/24 taxmann.com 28 (Mum.)(TM), the Hon'ble Third Member was considering the following issue on a difference of opinion:- Schneider Electric Infrastructure Ltd Vs. DCIT AY : 2017-18 29 "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the net margin realized from a transaction with an Associated Enterprise (AE) found and accepted at Arm's Length…

Nektar Therapeutics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle-5(1), Hyderbad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 203/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Nektar Therapeutics India Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad. Pan Aaccn1489R …..Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Suyash Sinha (A.R.)For Respondent: Shri YVST Sai (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92B

…he very segment so as to arrive at the impugned ALP. It is rather noted that the TPO sought for the assessee’s credit period in light of its inter-company agreement with its AEs only which is not permissible in light of Technimont ICV Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Addl. CIT 138 ITD 23 (Mum) (TM) and Sabic Innovative Plastics Vs. DCIT (2013) 59 SOT 138 (Ahm.) that an AE is nowhere contemplated as a comparable in transfer pricing regime since lacking uncontrolled transaction. This is also coupled with the fact that the learned lower authority(ies) have adopted SBI short-term deposit interest rate for benchmarking than the “LIB…

Corteva Agriscience Services India Private Limited(Formerly Known As E.I .Dupont Services Center India Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-१७(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2185/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Corteva Agriscience Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Services India Private Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle 17(1), As E.I. Dupont Service Hyderabad. Centre India Private Limited), 8Th, 9Th Floor, Tower 2.1, Waverock Building, Syno.115(P), Nanakramguda Village, Serlingampally, Hyderabad, Rangareddy, Telangana. Pan : Aacce0509M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan. Revenue By: Sri Rohit Mujumdar – Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 31.10.2017 In Case No.0520/2016-17/Cit(A)-5 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 1 Heard Both Sides. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…transactions as 30 days only. We thus make it clear that the learned lower authorities have not adopted any segmental comparable whilst arriving at the impugned adjustment. 4. Faced with this situation, we quote Tecnimont Icb Pvt Ltd., Mumbai Vs. ACIT (2012) 138 ITD 23 (Mumbai) and Sabic Innovative Plastic India Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT (2013) 59 SOT 138 (Ahmedabad) holding that an associate enterprise itself would not to be taken as a comparable since lacking the independent nature of an uncontrolled transaction in forming hallmark of Chapter X of the Act. We thus delete the impugned arms length price adjustment on rec…

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…rate in international transactions, involving the very business segment. Coming to the Revenue’s argument that this tribunal has already directed the TPO to go by the agreement between an assessee and its AEs, we quote Technimont ICB Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl.CIT [138 ITD 23] (ITAT, Mum) (TM) and Sabic Innovative Plastic India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 59 SOT 138 (Ahd) that an AE could not be adopted as a tested party since lacking uncontrolled comparable transactions. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs B R Constructions [(1992) 222 ITR 202 AP Full Court] holds that a co-ordinate bench decision not taki…

Progress Software Development Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 2271/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri Mahaveer Jain - ARFor Respondent: Sri Danda Srinivas - DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…period. We next hold that there is no clarity as to whether the said inter-company agreements pertain to the assessee’s associated enterprises only which could not be taken as independent comparable(s) in light of Technimont ICB Private Limited Vs. Addl. CIT 138 ITD 23 (TM) (Mum) or independent parties having comparable controlled transactions; as the case may. And also more particularly, the TPO has charged interest @ 14.5% than proceeding in light of market comparables in the very segment followed by the DRP’s directions adopting SBI domestic term deposit rates not pertaining to the assessee’s line of business…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Chemtex Global Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1626/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chemtex Global Income Tax 10(3), Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Room No.451, 4Th Floor Chemtex House, Aayakar Bhavan Main Street, Hiranandani Maharshi Karve Road Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 076 Pan/Gir No. Aaccc4458P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Chemtex Global Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 10(3), Room No.451, 4Th Floor Chemtex House, Main Street, Aayakar Bhavan Hiranandani Gardens, Maharshi Karve Road Powai, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 076 Pan/Gir No. Aaccc4458P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…t ICB India (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4608/Mum/2010, wherein it was held as under:- “5.………………We find that the reliance has been rightly placed on the decision of Third Member of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Tecnimont ICB India (P.) Ltd reported in [2012] 138 ITD 23 (Mumbai) (TM) wherein it was held that the Internal comparability should be given preference over external comparability……………” (page 10 of the order) j) Thus, in a nutshell the assessee argued that in the case of the assessee Internal comparability in the form of Internal TNMM as well as Internal CUP is available and therefore, the same should be…

Si Group India Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 1745/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Si Group India Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.D-2/1, Ttc Income Tax, Industrial Area, Ltu, Mumbai Thane-Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7323L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Si Group India Limited Income Tax, Plot No.D-2/1, Ttc Industrial Centre-1, 29Th Floor Area, World Trade Centre Thane-Belapur Road Cuffe Parade, Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai-400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7323L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing 17/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

Section 143(3)

…to be considered for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee with its AE. We find that the reliance has been rightly placed on the decision of Third Member of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Technimont ICB India (P.) Ltd reported in [2012] 138 ITD 23 (Mumbai) (TM) wherein it was held that the internal comparability should be given preference over external comparability. We find that the ld DRP erred in giving directions by comparing the total margin (AE+ Non-AE) of Navi Mumbai and Lote with the AE segment margin of Rasai. It is a very clear proposition in transfer pricing regulations that a co…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8926/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Gulati
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…AE from Bank is a valid comparable, hence, should not have been rejected. He submitted, the applicability of internal CUP also finds support under the OECD guidelines. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Tecnimont ICB Pvt. Ltd. 138 ITD 23; and ii) VVF Ltd. v/s DCIT, 31 CCH 474 40. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the DRP and the Transfer Pricing Officer. 41. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. The dispute is primarily with regard to the rate at which the assessee should have charged interest on the loan advan…

Dy. CIT, Circle-9, Pune vs. Mercedes Benz I Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler I Pvt. Ltd), Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1110/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Pramod Achuthan, Rajendra Agiwal
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1083/PUN/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, MIDC Chakan, Phase – III, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. PAN: AABCM1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8…

Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd), Pune vs. Asst. CIT, Circle-8, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1083/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Pramod Achuthan, Rajendra Agiwal
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1083/PUN/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, MIDC Chakan, Phase – III, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. PAN: AABCM1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8…

M/S Indian Explosives Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1957/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1957/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Indian Explosives Private Ltd.......................…..…….……………………………………………………..……Appellant 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 [Pan: Aaaci 6548 N] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata..……….….….……………….......Respondent Appearances By: Miss Oindrila Bala & Shri Saurabh Kedia, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 24Th,2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 7Th,2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Dt. 26/07/2017, Passed U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts In Brief:-

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 192CSection 40A(9)Section 92C(3)

…in question. We see no reason to concur with such a course of action since the assessee itself having paid Nil amount in the past to the AE, cannot be taken as a valid comparable. This tribunal in the case of Technimont ICB India (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2012) 138 ITD 23(Mumbai TM) has concluded long back that a transaction between payee and its AE is not an uncontrolled one so as to be taken as a comparable. We accept the assessee’s instant first substantive ground both on legality as well as on quantification therefore. The impugned ALP adjustment stands deleted accordingly.” 4. We therefore follow judicial cons…

M/S Indian Explosives Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

ITA 2336/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara& Sri M. Balaganesh] I.T.A. No. 2336/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Indian Explosives P. Ltd..................................…..…….……………………………………………………..……Appellant 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 [Pan: Aaaci 6548 N]

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 92C(3)

…in question. We see no reason to concur with such a course of action since the assessee itself having paid Nil amount in the past to the AE, cannot be taken as a valid comparable. This tribunal in the case of Technimont ICB India (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2012) 138 ITD 23(Mumbai TM) has concluded long back that a transaction between payee and its AE is not an uncontrolled one so as to be taken as a comparable. We accept the assessee’s instant first substantive ground both on legality as well as on quantification therefore. The impugned ALP adjustment stands deleted accordingly.” 3 I.T.A. No. 2336/Kol/2016 Assessm…

Indian Explosives Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The JCIT, R-11, Kolkata

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Years : 2010-11 Indian Explosives Limited Vs D.C.I.T. Circle-11(1), Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Indian Explosives Limited Vs J.C.I.T. Range-11, Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…in question. We see no reason to concur with such a course of action since the assessee itself having paid Nil amount in the past to the AE, cannot be taken as a valid comparable. This tribunal in the case of Technimont ICB India (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2012) 138 ITD 23(Mumbai TM) has concluded long back that a transaction between payee and its AE is not an uncontrolled one so as to be taken as a comparable. We accept the assessee’s instant first substantive ground both on legality as well as on quantification therefore. The impugned ALP adjustment stands deleted accordingly. ITA No.418/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 85/Kol…

Indian Explosives Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 418/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Years : 2010-11 Indian Explosives Limited Vs D.C.I.T. Circle-11(1), Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Indian Explosives Limited Vs J.C.I.T. Range-11, Kolkata 16C, Bepin Paul Road Kolkata – 700 026 (Pan: Aaaci 6548 N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, ARFor Respondent: G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…in question. We see no reason to concur with such a course of action since the assessee itself having paid Nil amount in the past to the AE, cannot be taken as a valid comparable. This tribunal in the case of Technimont ICB India (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2012) 138 ITD 23(Mumbai TM) has concluded long back that a transaction between payee and its AE is not an uncontrolled one so as to be taken as a comparable. We accept the assessee’s instant first substantive ground both on legality as well as on quantification therefore. The impugned ALP adjustment stands deleted accordingly. ITA No.418/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 85/Kol…

M/s. Technimont ICB P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 23) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax