Moser Baer India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

316 ITR 1High Court2009#14047 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40(a)(i)Section 92CA

Judgments citing Moser Baer India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1348/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 92C

…n respect of international transaction of intra group services received by the Respondent, the impugned order of the TPO was bad in law and liable to be set aside. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following : Moser Baer India Ltd. vs Addl. CIT: (2009) 316 ITR 1 (Delhi); Maari Multi-Trading (P.) Ltd. vs ITO: [2020] 118 taxmann.com 647 (Mumbai-Trib.) Re: Entity wide TNMM cannot be applied: 35. The Respondent benchmarked its international transactions separately by applying the most appropriate method in the manner as provided in Rule 108 and 100 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules…

M/S. ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 502/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Shri Niranjan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…assessee do not fall under the definition of “International Transactions” given in IT(TP)A Nos.502 & 2837/Bang/2017 Page 24 of 45 sec.92B and 92F of the Act. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Moser Baer (316 ITR 1), the Ld A.R submitted that the TPO has to bring on record some empirical evidence or material on record to show that there existed a mutual arrangement or understanding between the parties or they acted in concert so as to constitute an international transaction. Accordingly he contended that the AO/TPO cannot reach his conclusions on mere presump…

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.6 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2166/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent M/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Jayant Kumar With Shri V. Jenerdhanan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar with Shri V. Jenerdhanan (CIT-DR)
Section 254(1)Section 37Section 92ASection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92F

…er section 92C(3) of the Act which is sine-qua-none for invoking the provision for determination of ALP. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Moser Bear India Ltd. vs. ACIT 316 ITR 1 (Del), Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010] 328 ITR 210 (Delhi.). 5. On the contrary, the ld. DR for the Revenue submits that the submission made on behalf of the assessee is factually incorrect. Show-cause notice was issued by Assessing Officer vide notice dated 08.08.2012 and again on 30.12.2013. The assessee chose not to reply the show-cau…

ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INTERTOLL ICS INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7700/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Savla & Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7700/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 Income tax Officer-9(2)(1) M/s. Intertoll ICS India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.225, 2nd Floor, Aayakar A-Wing, Business Square, 4th Floor, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400 020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 903. PAN:AAACI 6853 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by:Shri Saurabh Deshpande Assessee by: S/Shr…

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…e with reference to some positive material that the two parties have come together and there was a unison or agreement for acting together for some common purpose. [Reliance is placed on the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Moser Baer India Ltd.: 316 ITR 1]. (B) Re: No mutual agreement or arrangement for allocation or apportionment of, or contribution to any cost or expense: Sub-section (2) of section 92 of the Act provides specific provision for allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to cost or expense, pursuant to a ‘mutual agreement’ or ‘arrangement’. The pre-condition for invoking ar…

DAIKIN AIRCONDITIONING INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5293/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:Asstt. Yr: 2003-04 Daikin Air Conditioning Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), India Pvt. 12Th Floor, New Delhi. Surya Kiran Building, 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan: Aabcd 0971 F & Asstt. Yr: 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 10(1), Vs. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. 12Th Floor, New Delhi. Surya Kiran Building, 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001. ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra Adv. Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chandra Danday Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2016. Date Of Order : 12/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra Danday Sr. DR

…owever, under such circumstance alternate analysis submitted by assessee was required to be considered by referring the same to ld. TPO. In this regard we may refer to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Moser Baer India Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT 316 ITR 1 has observed as under: “Authorities which have power to decide and whose decisions would prejudice a party, entailing civil consequences, would be required to accord oral hearing even where the statute is silent. The provisions of sub-section (3) of section 92CA cast a duty in no uncertain terms on the Transfer Pricing Officer to afford an opportu…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DAIKIN AIR- CONDITIONING INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2922/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:Asstt. Yr: 2003-04 Daikin Air Conditioning Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), India Pvt. 12Th Floor, New Delhi. Surya Kiran Building, 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan: Aabcd 0971 F & Asstt. Yr: 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 10(1), Vs. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. 12Th Floor, New Delhi. Surya Kiran Building, 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001. ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra Adv. Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chandra Danday Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2016. Date Of Order : 12/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra Danday Sr. DR

…owever, under such circumstance alternate analysis submitted by assessee was required to be considered by referring the same to ld. TPO. In this regard we may refer to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Moser Baer India Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT 316 ITR 1 has observed as under: “Authorities which have power to decide and whose decisions would prejudice a party, entailing civil consequences, would be required to accord oral hearing even where the statute is silent. The provisions of sub-section (3) of section 92CA cast a duty in no uncertain terms on the Transfer Pricing Officer to afford an opportu…

Moser Baer India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (316 ITR 1) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax