How many judgments cite Merck Ltd. v. Dy. CIT?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite Merck Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (179 TTJ 121), spanning 2017 to 2024.

Merck Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

179 TTJ 121Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#8107 most cited

What is Merck Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

The arm's length price (ALP) of intra-group services cannot be determined at NIL simply by applying the 'benefit test'. The Tribunal held that the concept of 'benefit test' is irrelevant for determining the ALP of intra-group services.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Merck Ltd. v. Dy. CIT · 179 TTJ 121 · 37 Taxmann.com 433 · ITAT · 2016 · arm's length price · ALP · intra-group services · benefit test · transfer pricing adjustment · section 92CA

Also reported as

37 Taxmann.com 433

Issues it is cited on

most appropriate method cup method comparable companies section 92ca(3)associated enterprises transfer pricing adjustment section 92c associated enterprise tnmm section 92ca arm's length price international transaction

Judgments citing Merck Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR

Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

…TPO for making adjustment, the adjustment is not tenable. To support his submissions he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd, 247 Taxman 136 (Bom) ii) CA Computer Associates Pvt. Ltd., 351 ITR 69 (Bom) (ii) Merck Limited, 179 TTJ 121 (Mum-Trib) affirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.744 of 2017 decided on 16/09/2019. 45. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of TPO and the directions of DRP. She referred to the short coming in the valuation report highlighted by the TPO in para 6.6 of the order passed u/s. 92CA(3) of…

Abbott India Ltd (As Successor to Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. Cit-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aaacu 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. CIT-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 PAN No. AAACU 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date of pronouncement : 30/11/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 26/12/…

Iss Facility Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms of aforesaid

ITA 411/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.411/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2013-14) Iss Facility Services India Private Limited The Qube, B 401/404 & A 402 Behind Taj Stats, Village Marol Sahar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 059 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aabc13815M बनाम/Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10(1)(2) Room No. 14, 20Th Floor, Air India Building, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri. M.P. Lohia with Shri. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…vices has resulted in increase in revenue and profitability of assessee over the years. The settled legal position now is that the ALP of intra- group services cannot be determined at NIL. The co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 179 TTJ 121 has held the concept of 'benefit test' is irrelevant. The Tribunal held that by applying benefit test ALP of intra- group services cannot be determined at NIL. 3.8 Further, from perusal of the TPO’s orders for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017- 18 placed on record, it is clear beyond doubt that similar international transaction pertaining to Payment…

Regus Gurgaon Metropolitan Business Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurugram

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

ITA 5357/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 234ASection 271Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA Nos.5356 & 5357/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Regus Gurgaon Vs. DCIT, Metropolitan Business Circle-2, Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram Level-4, Augusta Point, DLF Golf Course Road, Sectore- 53, Gurugram PAN :AADCR7347H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Manoneet Dalal, Adv. Respondent by Sh. M. Barnwal, Sr.DR Date of hearing 22.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 11.11.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: These two appeal…

Regus Gurgaon Metropolitan Business Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurugram

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

ITA 5356/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 234ASection 271Section 92C

L'Oreal India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 130/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 130/मुं/2013 ("न.व. 2007-08) It(Tp)A No.130/Mum/2013(A.Y.2007-08) M/S. L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaacl0738K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 6(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

…observations of the CIT(A), wherein the First Appellate Authority has held that the ALP of the marketing services are nil if CUP is applied. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Merck Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported as 179 TTJ 121 (Mum) to contend that were bundle of services are received under an agreement and the payments are made for such package and not for individual services, if the assesse does not use any particular services from such bundle of services it is not justified to hold that the payment is not warranted for that particular service that has not been utili…

Ciba India Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4210/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.4210/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Ciba India Ltd. (Through their successors BASF India Ltd.) Vibgyor Towers, Unit no.101, 1st Floor ……………. Appellant Block–C–62, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN – AAACC4147P v/s Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) ……………. Respondent Range–8(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w Shri Milin Thakkar and Ms. Nyrica Trikannad Revenue by : Shri Anand Mohan Date of Hearing – 03.12.2020 Date of Order – 16.…

Dhl Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9 (3)91), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7166/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6847/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Regus Business Centre Private Limited Acit-13(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.229 Level-2, Raheja Centre Point बनाम/ Near Mumbai University Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. (Opp. Bandra Kurla Complex) Mumbai 400 020. Santacruz East, Mumbai 400 098 Pan/Gir No. Aadcr-1920-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Uodal Raj Singh-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31/08/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Uodal Raj Singh-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…quarter. Further, the settled legal position now is that the ALP of intra group services cannot be determined at ‘Nil’. The ‘benefit test’ analysis which was earlier accepted has now been held to be redundant. The Tribunal in the case of Merck Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 179 TTJ 121 has held the concept of ‘benefit test’ as irrelevant. The Tribunal held that by applying befit test ALP of intra-group services Regus Business Centre Private Limited Assessment Year: 2014-15 cannot be determined at ‘Nil’. Thereafter, in various decisions by the Tribunal the application of benefit test analysis has been rejected. Thus, we deem i…

Regus Business Centre P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1110/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramesh C. Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1110/मुं/2017 ("न. व.2012-13) Regus Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. Level -2, Raheja Centre Point, Near Mumbai University, Opp. Bandra Kurla Complex, Santacruz East, Mumbai 400 098 Pan: Aadcr1920Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 13(3)(1) Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla with Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “जे ”, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI "ी रमेश सी. शमा", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं. 1110/मुं/2017 ("न. व.2012-13) Regus Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. Level -2, Raheja Centre Point, Near Mumbai University, Opp. Bandra Kurla Complex, Santacruz East, Mumbai 400 098 PAN: AADCR1920Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 13(3)(1) MUMBAI. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwalla with Shri Ketan…

Fcb Advertising P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2194/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain & Mr. SiddheshFor Respondent: Mr. Rignesh Das, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 40

…11 & 2011- 12. It has also been submitted that no such adjustment has been proposed in the subsequent years as well. 4.3 Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements to support various submissions: - i) Merck Limited V/s DCIT [Mumbai Tribunal 37 Taxmann.com 433 as confirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No.272 of 2014 08/08/2016] ii) CIT V/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. [Hon’ble Bombay High Court ITA No. 1030 of 2014 07/03/2017] iii) Firmenich Aromatics India Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT [Mumbai Tribunal ITA No.2590/Mum/2017 23/07/2018] iv) CLSA India Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT [Mumbai Tribunal ITA No. 1182/Mum/20…

Smith & Nephew Healthcare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2028/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia a/wFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh a/w

…tion, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– 14 Smith & Nephew i) CIT v/s EKL Appliances Ltd., [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del.); ii) CIT v/s Lever India Exports, [2017] 78 taxmann.com 88 (Bom.); iii) Merck Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 179 TTJ 121 (Mum.); iv) TNS India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.944/Hyd./2007, etc., dated 22.01.2014; and v) CIT v/s CA Computer Associates India Pvt. Ltd., 351 ITR 069 (Bom.). 18. However, he submitted that the issue may be restored back to the Assessing Officer for enabling the assessee to demonstrate that it has not only received services from the AE but h…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. A.T.VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.515/KOL/2016, 974 & 975/KOL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11] DCIT, v s M/s. AT & S Pvt.Ltd., Circle-11(1), Aayakar 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud, Bhawan, P-7, Mysore, Karnataka-741251. Chowringhee Square, PAN-AAECA2930J Kolkata-700069. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh.G.Mallikarjuna, CIT & Sh. Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT Sr. DR Respondent by Ms. Rituparna Sinha & Sh. Anup Sinha, AR Date of Hearing 07.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement 05.10.201…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), 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

Asb International Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT Cir-1, Kalyan

ITA 2137/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Karshima Phatarphekar & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 92

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ केकेकेके” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, , , , शि"जीत डे एवं शि"जीत डे शि"जीत डे, "याियक शि"जीत डे "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Saktijit Dey,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA(TP)/No.2137/Mum/2016 : िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year…