Merck Ltd. v. DCIT

148 ITD 513Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#4584 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).

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 37Section 92CSection 92C(1)

Issues it is cited on

far analysiscup methodtransactional net margin methodmost appropriate methodsection 144c(5)tnmmassociated enterprisessection 92csection 144c(13)associated enterpriseinternational transactiontransfer pricing adjustment

Judgments citing Merck Ltd. v. DCIT

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

…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…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Adcock Ingram Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1039/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Vishnu Bagri, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Harinder Kumar, CIT - DR
Section 92B

…IT(TP)A.1039 & 1078/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T(TP).A No.1039 & 1078/Bang/2015 (Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -11(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant vs. M/s. Adcock Ingram Ltd, 49C & D, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru 560 009 .. Respondent PAN : AAGCA4343M Assessee by : Shri. Vishnu Bagri, CA Revenue by : Shri. Harinder Kumar, CIT - DR Heard on : 12.12.2017 Pronounced on : 31.01.2018 O R D E R…

Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…iew, the ld. AR relied on the following decisions, wherein it has been held that the TPO has no jurisdiction to apply any method other than those prescribed under the Rules. 1. DCIT vs. Diebold Software Services (P) Ltd. [151 ITD 463] 2. Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT [148 ITD 513] 4.3 Regarding the jurisdiction of the AO and the TPO to determine the commercial expediency of the assessee, it was submitted by the ld. AR that under the provisions of sec.92CA of the Act, the TPO is vested with the power to determine the ALP, which needs to be computed in accordance with the methods prescribed. The TPO has remarked that the…

Gamesa Renewable Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1420/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, CIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…iew, the ld. AR relied on the following decisions, wherein it has been held that the TPO has no jurisdiction to apply any method other than those prescribed under the Rules. 1. DCIT vs. Diebold Software Services (P) Ltd. [151 ITD 463] 2. Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT [148 ITD 513] 4.3 Regarding the jurisdiction of the AO and the TPO to determine the commercial expediency of the assessee, it was submitted by the ld. AR that under the provisions of sec.92CA of the Act, the TPO is vested with the power to determine the ALP, which needs to be computed in accordance with the methods prescribed. The TPO has remarked that the…

M/S. at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2538/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N C Swain CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36

…Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. – 4347/Del/2o12) (Del.) (Refer Para 5 on Page no. 120 of the Case Law Compendium) – Platinum Guild India Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No. 7720/Mum/2012) (Mum.) (Refer Para 10 on Page no. 391 of the Case Law Compendium) Merck Ltd. Vs. DCIT (148 ITD 513) (Mum.) – (Refer Para 24.5 to 24.7 on Page no. 353 and 354 of the Case Law Compendium) 2.23 Based on the legal principles enunciated above it is concluded that the TP adjustment can be made by the TPO/DRP only by applying any specific method as stated u/s 92C(2) of the Act. In facts of the present case even though the TPO/DRP mentions that CUP sh…

L.K. India Pvt. Ltd. ( Currently Known As Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd.), Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 209/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2017AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

…tentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 8. As we begin to deal with this issue, we find that in a materially identical situation in the case of Merck Limited Vs DCIT [(2016) 139 DTR 1(Mum)], a coordinate bench, speaking through one of us i.e. the Accountant Member, has observed, inter alia, as follows: 9. We find that there is a clear contradiction in the findings of the authorities below. On one hand, the stand of the authorities below is that no services are rendered, and, on the other hand, there are categorical findings that…