How many judgments cite Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT?

85 judgments on BharatTax cite Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (109 ITD 101), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 144C(13), Section 92CA(3), Section 92B, Section 10B(3).

Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

109 ITD 101Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#1345 most cited

What is Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

A working capital adjustment is mandated and a prerequisite for correctly determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) under Rule 10B(1)(e) and Rule 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This adjustment accounts for differences in working capital and outstanding receivables between the assessee and comparable companies.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT · 109 ITD 101 · ITAT 2007 · transfer pricing adjustment · working capital adjustment · arm's length price · Rule 10B(3) · Section 92B · comparable companies · outstanding receivables

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C(13)Section 92CA(3)Section 92B Section 10B(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234C

Issues it is cited on

interest on outstanding receivables working capital adjustment tested party comparable companies benchmarking analysis section 92b most appropriate method arm's length price transfer pricing adjustment section 144c(13)tnmm directions of the drp

Judgments citing Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Indo Spanish Tasty Foods Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 194/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt Neera Malhotra, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…enterprise level differences should be adjusted if such differences materially affect the amount of net profit margin”. To support the objection, the assessee relied on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt.Ltd Vs DCIT 109 ITD 101 and following other judicial pronouncements; 7 ITA No.194(B)/15 & C.O.No.90(B)/15 - Philips Software Centre (P) Ltd., Vs DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 226 (Bag) - Demag Cranes & Components (Ind) Pvt.Ltd Vs DCIT (2012) 17 Taxman.com 190(Pune). - Emerson Process Management (ind.) Pvt.Ltd Vs DCIT (2011) 13 Taxmann.com 149(Mum.) - Acts Advisers Pvt.Ltd.,Vs DC…

M/S. Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6638/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Lower Ground Floor, C-4/5, New Delhi. Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi (Pan: Aadcp7362G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Ms. Shweta Kashyap, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.10.2013 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao") Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Making An Addition To The Total Income Of The Appellant Amounting To Rs. 95,945,630/- In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Drp") Upholding The Adjustment To The Transfer Price Proposed By The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Tpo").

For Appellant: S/sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…the results of the corporate to make the equitable comparison. The ld. AR placed reliance on the following decision of the Tribunals: i. Mercer Consulting India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT [2014]150 ITD 1 (Delhi - Trib.) ii. Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd vs DCIT [2007]109 ITD 101 (Del) iii. TNT India Private Limited vs ACIT [2011]45 SOT 471 (Bang) iv. Philips Software Centre (P.) Ltd vs ACIT [2008]26 SOT 226 (Bang.) 51 ITA No. 6638/Del/2013, AY: 2009-10 15.1 We have heard the submission and perused the material on record including the cases cited by the ld AR. We have noticed the analysis of the working capital requirem…

ITO vs. M/S Infinera India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the department is partly

ITA 294/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Eric Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 10A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.294/Bang/2013 (Assessment year: 2008-09) Income-tax Officer, Ward 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Infinera India Ltd., Prestige Solitaire Ltd. 401, Level-4, No.6 Brunton Road, … Respondent Bangalore-560025. PAN: AABCI 1411R AND Cross Objn.No.152/Bang/2015 [in IT(TP)A No.294/Bang/2013] (Assessment year: 2008-09) BY : RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE Revenue by: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl. CIT (DR) Assessee by: Shri Eric Mehta, CA. Date of hearing : 12/11/2…

Moser Baer India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle -5 (1)

In the result appeal is allowed

ITA 882/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2015AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri S.V.Mehrotra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv, Rama Katyal CA &For Respondent: Shri Amrender Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92C

…s regard is placed on the following case laws: Egain Communication (P) Ltd. vs DCIT 118 ITD 243 (Kol) Schefenacker Motherson Ltd. vs. ITO 123 TTJ 509 (Del) Honeywell Automation Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 108 TTJ 924 (Del) Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 109 ITD 101 (Del) DCIT vs. Sony India (P) Ltd. 114 ITD 488 (Del) Skoda Auto India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 122 TTJ 699 (Pune) It is to be appreciated that the comparison of prices charged from GMI without making the aforesaid adjustments with that of prices charged from third party, would result in fallacious comparison as the two parties would not be placed in…

Apigee Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 870/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Kishore Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.870/Bang/2013 Assessment year : 2008-09 Apigee Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner of [formerly Sonoa Networks (India) Pvt. Income Tax (OSD), Ltd.] Circle 12(3), No.17/2, 2nd “B” Cross, Bangalore. 7th Main, 3rd Floor, 3rd Block Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034. PAN: AAICS 9117R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Pravin Kishore Prasad, CA Respondent by : Shri P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 08.09.2015 Dat…