How many judgments cite Merck Ltd. v. DCIT?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Merck Ltd. v. DCIT (148 ITD 513), spanning 2017 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Merck Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C(13), Section 10B(1)(a), Section 10B(2), Section 144C(5), Section 37.

Merck Ltd. v. DCIT

148 ITD 513Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#4651 most cited

What is Merck Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

A transfer pricing adjustment is inappropriate where the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) fails to identify a comparable transaction to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP).

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Merck Ltd. v. DCIT · 148 ITD 513 · transfer pricing adjustment · ALP · comparable transaction · TPO · section 92C · international transaction

Also reported as

69 Taxmann.com 45139 DTR 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 10B(1)(a)Section 10B(2)Section 144C(5)Section 37 Section 92C Section 92C(1)

Issues it is cited on

far analysis cup method transactional net margin method most appropriate method section 144c(5)tnmm associated enterprises section 92c section 144c(13)associated enterprise international transaction transfer pricing adjustment

Judgments citing Merck Ltd. v. DCIT

SHREE RAJPUT SABHA,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 311/JPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…ceipts Cancellation of registration in view of First proviso to section 2(15) – Not a ground specified in statute for cancellation of registration Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 2(15), first proviso, 12AA(3) CIT vs Jodhpur Development Authority 287 CTR 473 (Raj.)/ 139 DTR 1 Charitable trust Registration under s. 12A - Charitable purpose of planning and development of city vis-a-vis earning of profit - Predominant object of the JDA being to secure the integrated development of the region which undoubtedly falls within the expression 'advancement of any other objects of general public utility' within the definition of s…

GATES INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2379/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I” DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2379/DEL/2022 Assessment Year 2018-19 Gates India Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, C-434, Defence Colony South, Vs. Circle-10(1), New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAOCS8090D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-(DR) Date of hearing: 12 06 2024 Date of pronouncement: 22 08 2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final as…

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INVIDA INDIA PVT.LTD. ( NOW KNOWN AS MENARINI INDIA PVT. LTD.), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1316/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…Entity Level) which is better than operating margin of comparable being 7.04%. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a) Castrol India Ltd. vs. ACIT – 55SOT 521(Mum) b) Toyota Kirloskar Motor P. Ltd. – 33 ITR (1) 700 (Bang.) c) Merek Ltd. vs. DCIT – 148 ITD 513 (Mum) d) SC Enviro Agro India Ltd. vs. DCIT – 59 SOT 109 (Mum) A.Y. 2010-11 Page 7 of 13 The Ld. AR further submitted that similar payments was made in A.Y. 2007- 08 to 09-10 and accepted in those years at the price declared by the assessee i.e. no TP adjustment has been made. Hence, following principles of consistency, no TP adjustment is warr…

FULFORD (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 338/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.338/मुं/2014(िन.व.2009-10) Fulford (India) Limited, Platina Building, 8Th Floor, C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 098 Pan: Aaacf-1795-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate With Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr & Shri Ujjwal Kumar Chavan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 13/12/2013 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are: The Assessee/Appellant Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Distribution Of Pharmaceutical Products In 2 India. The Assessee Is A Subsidiary Of Schering-Plough Corporation, Usa. During The Period Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Entered Into Various International Transactions With Its Associated Enterprise(Ae). During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Made Adjustment In Respect Of Following International Transactions: Sl.No. Description Of International Transaction Adjustment Made By Tpo (Amount In Rs.) 1. Import Of Active Pharmaceutical 4,81,96,325 Ingredients (Apis) 2 Import Of Finished Drug Formulations (Fdf) 15,75,53,000 Total 20,57,49,325

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate with Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)

…partmental Representative further submits that adjustment while applying CUP is an accepted norm. To support this argument he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 147 ITD 156(Mum) and Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT, 148 ITD 513. As regards argument of the ld.Counsel for the assessee in respect of generic vs. patent APIs, the Ld. Departmental Representative submits that quality and performance of both the APIs would meet the minimum standards as specified under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Once the API qualifies minimum standards there is no difference between gene…

ACIT CIR 7(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MERCK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1798/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8Th Floor, Dcit 7(2)(1) Pirojshanagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Merk Limited Acit Cir 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2616F Assessee By : Ms. Arativissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM M/s. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8th Floor, DCIT 7(2)(1) PirojshaNagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Merk Limited ACIT CIR 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACE2616F Assessee by : Ms. AratiVissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue by : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date of hearing: 07.09.2022 Date of pron…

MERCK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 7(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1525/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

YCH LOGISTICS LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 944/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 944/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Ych Logistics (India) Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Plot No. Dv1, Sipcot Hi-Tech Vs. Income Tax, Sez, Phase Ii, Sirumangadu Village, Corporate Circle 3(2), Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Chennai. District, Tamil Nadu 602 105. [Pan:Aaacy2873L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 14.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Logistics Services & Filed Its Return Of Income On 20.07.2011 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Admitting Loss Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Palanikumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…d 2009-10. The ld. AR, also relied on the following judgments, wherein it has been held that no transfer pricing adjustment is warranted in a scenario where the TPO has not taken any step to identify a comparable to determine the ALP : a. Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT (148 ITD 513 - Mumbai, ITAT) – upheld by Bombay High Court [ITA 272 of 2014] b. DCIT vs. Flakt India Ltd. in ITA No.1032/Mds/2014 dated 09.06.2016 – Chennai ITAT 4 I.T.A. No.944/Chny/15 c. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA Nos. 1420 & 376/Mds/2017 dated 13.11.2017 – Chennai ITAT Applying the above principles to the current fact pattern…

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDIT.CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA No. 58 /Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 Ineos Styrolution India The DCIT, Ltd., Vadodara TP-I, Ahmedabad PAN: AAACB6164H Vs (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A.R. & Ms. Sonal Pandey, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 12-05-2022 Date of pronouncement : 03-08-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(DRP- 2), Mumbai-1,…

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6618/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Income Tax-3(1)(1) Godrej It Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…Dow Agrosciences India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai – A.Y 2014-15 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Dow Agrosciences India Private Asst. Commissioner of Limited, 1st Floor, Block B, Income tax-3(1)(1) Godrej IT Park, [Income-Tax Officer-14(1)(3)] Room No. 458, Vs. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN – AAACD3813H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R Respondent by: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R Date of Hearing: 10.02.2021 Da…

DOW AGROSCIENCES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1051/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sooddow Agrosciences India Private Acit, Range-14(1)(2) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3812H (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A. No.203/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dow Agrosciences India Private Dcit, Range-14(1)(1) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A. No.1528/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dow Agrosciences India Private Income Tax Officer , Range-14(1)(3) Limited, 1St Floor, Block B, Room No. 458, Godrej It Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 Pan – Aaacd3813H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/w Shri. Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Jha, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…ITA Nos.1051/Mum/2015, ITA No.203/Mum/2016 & ITA No.1528/Mum/2017 1 A.Ys 2010-11 to 2012-13 Dow Agrosciences India Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range-14(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Dow Agrosciences India Private ACIT, Range-14(1)(2) Limited, 1st Floor, Block B, Room No. 460, Godrej IT Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400079 PAN – AAACD3812H (Appellant) (Respondent) IT(TP)A. No.203/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dow Agrosciences India Private DCI…

FULFORD (INDIA) LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT.(OSD)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6154/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Fulford (India) Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Platina C-59, Vs. Income Tax (Osd)-2(1), Mumbai G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400098 Pan No. Aaacf1795L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT- DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 250(4)Section 92BSection 92C(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: 2003-04 Fulford (India) Limited, The Assistant Commissioner of 8th floor, Platina C-59, Vs. Income Tax (OSD)-2(1), Mumbai G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400098 PAN No. AAACF1795L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Mathur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue by : Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT- DR & Mr. C. Anjaria, DR Last date of Hearing : 30/08/2019 : 25/11/2019 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN…

ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2314/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcm 09294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raghunathan S. Revenue By : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…ther words, the TPO cannot simply arrive at a conclusion that quality and volume of services received by the Appellant were not commensurate with payment made by the Appellant. This view is fortified by the order of Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. vs DCIT [148 ITD 513] (Mumbai) - upheld by Bombay High Court [ITA 272 of 2014] 24.7 Such argument in our view is not convincing. The argument would have been valid if fees was fixed in respect of each service, which was compulsorily required tobe provided to the assessee, but it is not so in the present case. The agreement listed certain services on which the assesse…

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AT & S INDIA PVT. LTD., MYSORE

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 975/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

…transactions was determined by the TPO at "nil' without applying any of the prescribed methods and the entire payment made by the assessed for availing the IT support services from its AE was added as TP adjustment. In the case of Merck Ltd. V. Dy. CIT [2014] 148 ITD 513/[2013] 37 taxmann.com 433 (Mum. Trib.) cited by the Id. Counsel for the assessee, similar facts were involved inasmuch as the assessed had applied TNMM to show that the margin earned by it from the relevant transactions with its AE was higher than the comparable companies. The TPO, however, did not accept the TP analysis made by the assessed with…

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AT & S PVT. LTD., KARNATAKA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 515/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

M/S. EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1373/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)

…vices (P.)Ltd.: [2014]48 taxmann.com 26 (Mumbai)  AWB India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT: [2015]166 TTJ 524 (Del- Trib.)  Nimbus Communications Ltd vs ACIT [2014]149 ITD 508 (Mum - Trib)  Ericsson India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT [2012]17 ITR(T) 79 (Del)  Merck Ltd vs DCIT [2014]148 ITD 513 (Mum - Trib.)  Quintiles Research (India) Private Ltd vs DCIT [2014]63 SOT 57 (Bang - Trib.)  TNS India Pvt Ltd v ACIT: [2014]32 ITR (T) 44 (Hyd)  Durovalves India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT ITA No. 2483 (PN) OF 2012 (Pune)  AXA Technologies Shared Services Pvt Ltd vs DCIT: ITA No 659/Bang/2012  Hero Motorcycle & Scooter India (P) Ltd vs DCIT ITA No…

M/S EATON POWER QUALITY P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 119/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)

M/S INDIAN EXPLOSIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, 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)

…transfer pricing regime is as to what would be the price to be paid by an independent enterprise vis-à-vis the one shown by the concerned tax payer; respectively. The very legal position is reiterated in tribunal’s other decisions in Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT 2016 139 DTR 1 (Mum.), as well as in L.K. India Pvt. Ltd. vs Dy.Cit, Circle-1(2)in ITA No. 209/Ahd/2015, decided on 31st May, 2017. The co-ordinate bench(es), hold therein that it is an assessee’s call as to whether or not the services availed in question are commercially expedient rendering same benefits being derived from its business. 4.1 We keep in mind the s…

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2590/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafnaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…); iii) Dresser–Rand India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2011] 141 TTJ (Mum.) 2010; iv) DCIT v/s M/s. UCB India Ltd., ITA no.1218/Mum./2014, dated 27.04.2016; v) AWB India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.6480/Del./2012, dated 13.10.2014; and vi) Merck Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2014] 148 ITD 513 (Mum.); and vii) DCIT v/s M/s. Diebold Software Services Pvt. Ltd., ITA no. 4347/Mum./2012, dated 02.04.2014. 20. The learned Departmental Representative relying upon the observations of the DRP and the Transfer Pricing Officer submitted that the assessee did not file proper documentary evidences before the Transfer Pricing Officer to prove avail…

M/S INDIAN EXPLOSIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, 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)

INDIAN EXPLOSIVES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE JCIT, R-11, KOLKATA, 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

…transfer pricing regime is as to what would be the price to be paid by an independent enterprise vis-à-vis the one shown by the concerned tax payer; respectively. The very legal position is reiterated in tribunal’s other decisions in Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT 2016 139 DTR 1 (Mum.), as well as in L.K. India Pvt. Ltd. vs Dy.Cit, Circle-1(2)in ITA No. 209/Ahd/2015, decided on 31st May, 2017. The co- ordinate bench(es), hold therein that it is an assessee’s call as to whether or not the services availed in question are commercially expedient rendering same benefits being derived from its business. 4.1 We keep in mind the…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2