How many judgments cite Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT?

220 judgments on BharatTax cite Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (381 ITR 117), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 92B, Section 143(3), Section 92C, Section 144C(13), Section 144C(5), Section 234B.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT

381 ITR 117High Court2016#408 most cited

What is Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

220

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT · 381 ITR 117 · Bright Line Test · BLT · AMP expenditure · international transaction · arm's length price · ALP · section 92B · section 92C · burden of proof · transfer pricing method

Also reported as

64 Taxmann.com 150237 Taxmann 256

Sections most often in play

Section 92B Section 143(3)Section 92C Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234B Section 271(1)(c)Section 92F

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

bright line test section 92f(v)amp expenditure section 92f cost plus method comparable uncontrolled price method section 92(1)section 92b functional analysis transactional net margin method section 92c(3)tested party

Judgments citing Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, Circle-9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Fedex Express Transportation & Supply Services (I) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5509/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalacit, Circle – 9(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Fedex Express Room No. 215, 2Nd Transportation & Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Supply Services (I) Pvt Mk Road, Mumbai – Ltd., 400020. A-Wing, Boomerang Bldg., Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf6516A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Usha Gaikwad. Dr Respondent By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna. Ar Date Of Hearing 31.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 02.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Smt. Usha Gaikwad. DRFor Respondent: Shri Dhanesh Bafna. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…l degree of economic independence and regardless of whether profits are reserved or distributed to shareholders. M/s. FedEx Express transportation & supply Services (I) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 13. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki reported in 381 ITR 117 while dealing with transfer pricing adjustment on AMP expenses incurred by Indian company has negative the contention that such expenses, in the absence of any understanding with AE empower the revenue to make adjustment. It is also important to note that if there are any transactions between the assessee and its affiliates that would be a subjec…

Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 6(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5157/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5157/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-6(1) बिाम/ Indiabulls Finance Centre Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg Vs. Elphinstone West, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-4313-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5035Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-6(1) Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ Mumbai. Indiabulls Finance Centre 6Th Floor, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg Vs. Elphinstone West, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-4313-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistri-Ld. Sr. Counsel प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Deshpande & Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra-Ld.Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri-Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande & Shri Sushil

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92Section 92BSection 92F

…angement which resulted into any direct or indirect benefit to the brand of assessee’s AE, these transactions could not be regarded as international transaction u/s 92B as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. V/s CIT (2015; 64 Taxmann.com 150). In this case, it was further held that no adjustment for determination of arm's length price with regard to AMP expenditure can be made by resorting to bright line test or any other similar method which is not provided in the statute. It could be noted that this decision was delivered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court at a later point of t…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 8700/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

…gh Court. In earlier years the issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate Bench by taking into consideration the following decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 381 ITR 117 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd. reported in 381 ITR 154 (Delhi); (iii) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT reported in 237 Taxman 304 (Delhi); (iv) Bausch and Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. reported in CIT 381 ITR 227 (Delhi); 5.1 In the year under consideration there is no change in the facts and circumstances of th…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7376/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92F

…h Court. In earlier years the issue in dispute has been decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate Bench by taking into consideration the following decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 381 ITR 117 (Delhi); (ii) CIT vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd. reported in 381 ITR 154 (Delhi); (iii) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT reported in 237 Taxman 304 (Delhi); (iv) Bausch and Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. reported in CIT 381 ITR 227 (Delhi); 5.1 In the year under consideration there is no change in the facts and circumstances of t…

DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6872/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () & The Assistant Commissioner M/S Fedex Express Of Income Tax-9(3)(1), Vs. Transportation & Supply Chain Room No. 215, 2Nd Floor, Services (India) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Boomerang, 801, A Wing, Mumbai - 400020 Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400072 Pan No. Aabcf6516A (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Leena Srivastava, D.R Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Leena Srivastava, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…e subjected to income tax on standalone basis irrespective of their actual degree of economic independence and regardless of whether profits are reserved or distributed to shareholders. 13. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki reported in 381 ITR 117 while dealing with transfer pricing adjustment on AMP expenses incurred by Indian company has negative the contention that such expenses, in the absence of any understanding with AE empower the revenue to make adjustment. It is also important to note that if there are any transactions between the assessee and its affiliates that would be a subjec…

Kimberly Clark Lever P.Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 22 ITR 1 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT, 381 ITR 117 and held as under :- “19. In the present case, the assessee-company imports the lens from its foreign AE and after some processing, sells the products on its own. However, the amount of value addition on account of processing in terms of total revenue is not clear from the material on record. That apart, the assessee-company has been throughout c…

Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5146/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamblenikon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Plot No. 71, Circle-3(1) Sectdor-32, Institutional Area, 2Nd Floor, Hsiidc Building, Gurgaon, Haryana Vaniyjaya Nikunj, Udyog Pin 122001 Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv & Sh. Ankit Sahni, Adv Respondent By Sh. Mritunjoy Baranwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2020

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92C(2)

…bursement of expenses incurred by the domestic company for its business purposes. Further, onus to prove the existence of a mutual agreement between the AEs for incurring AMP expenditure has been placed on the revenue by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. CIT [2016] 381 ITR 117 (Delhi). The TPO has not brought, on record, any iota of evidence to substantiate that there has been an understanding between the domestic company and its AE to: - incur AMP expenditure on behalf of AE and its reimbursement thereof; - develop (if any created) / transfer of marketing intangibles, in the course of incurrence of such expenditure;…

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

…tween the assessee and 'HGH', Cayman Islands for promotion of its brand. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a series of decisions, inter alia, including the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 64 taxmann.com 150/[2016] 237 Page 52 of 64 Taxman 256/381 ITR 117 (Delhi) emphasized the importance of Revenue having to first discharge the initial burden upon it with regard to showing the existence of an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. In the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), at para 64 it was held as under :— "64. The transfer pricing adjustment is not expected to be made…

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)

…s or implied between the assessee and 'HGH', Cayman Islands for promotion of its brand. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a series of decisions, inter alia, including the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 64 taxmann.com 150/[2016] 237 Taxman 256/381 ITR 117 (Delhi) emphasized the importance of Revenue having to first discharge the initial burden upon it with regard to showing the existence of an international transaction between the assessee and the AE. In the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), at para 64 it was held as under :— "64. The transfer pricing adjustment is not expected to be made…

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1970/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ere is transaction between the assessee and AE with regard to AMP expenses. 9. The bright line test was rejected by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT. On marketing tangibles in the case of Maruti Suzuki (2016) 381 ITR 117 and Whirlpool India Ltd. (2016) 318 ITR 154, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has rejected the 19 Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd. contentions of the revenue and the issue is before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. At the outset, the ld. AR argued that establishment of an existence of an international transaction is sine qua non for any further step t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1053/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That on facts and in law the

Section 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1088/Del./2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Xerox India Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 5th Floor, Vatika Business Circle-27(2), Park, Sector-49, Sohna New Delhi Road, Gurgaon PAN :AAACM8634R (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No.1053/Del./2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Vs. M/s. Xerox India Ltd., Circle-27(2), 5th Floor, Vatika Business New Delhi Park, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon PAN :AAACM8634R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Depart…

ACIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mattel Toys (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3903/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit-7(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Mattel Toys (India) R. No. 573, 5Th Floor Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Phoenix House Mumbai – 400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaccm2563P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.152/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3903/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Mattel Toys (India) Vs. Acit-7(2)(1) R. No. 573, 5Th Floor Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan Phoenix House M.K. Road Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaccm2563P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT DB-II)-‘J’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ACIT-7(2)(1) Vs. M/s. Mattel Toys (India) R. No. 573, 5th Floor Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Phoenix House Mumbai – 400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 PAN/GIR No.AACCM2563P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.152/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.3903/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/s. Mattel Toys (India) Vs. ACIT-7(2)(1) R. No. 573, 5th Floor Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan Phoenix House M.K. Road Senapati Bapat Marg Mumb…

Suzuki Motorcycles (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

ITA 7142/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 928

…ons can be inferred merely on the basis of BLT? 15. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2010-11 (supra) decided this issue by returning following findings :- “10. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 117 (Del.) has decided the identical issue of AMP expenses in case of manufacturing entity in favour of the assessee by distinguishing Sony Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del.) case wherein the assessee has not disputed the existence of international transaction qua its AMP expenses. So, in case of assessee, being a manufactur…

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2060/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 234BSection 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2060/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Xerox India Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 5th & 6th Floor, Vatika Circle-27(2), Business Park, Sector-49, New Delhi Sohna Road, Gurgaon PAN :AAACM8634R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by Shri Surenderpal, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 21.07.2020 Date of pronouncement 05.08.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 29/01/201…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6766/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Soumya Kulkarni/Mr. Arvind V. Sonde, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Colgate – Palmolive (India) Ltd., Addl. Commissioner of Income Colgate Research Centre, Main Vs. Tax-10(3), Mumbai. Street, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400076. PAN No. AAACC4309B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Soumya Kulkarni/Mr. Arvind V. Sonde, AR Revenue by : Mr. Michael Jerald, DR Last Date of Hearing : 06/03/2020 Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. Th…

M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 625/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…m any of its AE(s). In the light of above facts we note that arm`s length price adjustment (ALP) made by TPO and confirmed by DRP is not justified for that we rely on the judgment of Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd V.CIT [2016] 381 ITR 117 (Del-HC), wherein it was held as follows: “66. It is contended by the Revenue that the mere fact that the Indian entity is engaged in the activity of creation, promotion or maintenance of certain brands of its foreign AE or for the creation/promotion of new/existing markets for the AE, is by itself enough to demonstrate that there is an arrangem…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 529/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

Reckitt Denckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)