How many judgments cite Page Industries Ltd. v. DCIT?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite Page Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (159 ITD 680), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Page Industries Ltd. v. DCIT

159 ITD 680Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#9216 most cited

What is Page Industries Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Two enterprises are considered associated enterprises under Section 92A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only if they satisfy the conditions laid out in both sub-sections (1) and (2) of the section.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Page Industries Ltd v DCIT · Section 92A · associated enterprises · control · management · capital · transfer pricing provisions · income tax act · 1961 · ITAT

Also reported as

76 Taxmann.com 240

Judgments citing Page Industries Ltd. v. DCIT

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम) BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), GN Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAABCO 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKथ" की…

Dy Cti, CC-16(1), Mumbai vs. Shipa Shetty, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 478/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Section 92A(2)(j)Section 92B

…mitted that in order to constitute a relationship between the AEs, the parameters laid down in both sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 92A of the Act should be fulfilled. Ld. AR also relied upon the decision in the case of Page Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 159 ITD 680 (Bang. ITAT), Obulapuram Mining Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 76 taxmann.com 240 (Bang. ITAT) and ACIT v. Veer Gems [2017] 183 TTJ 588 (Ahd. ITAT) Ld. AR on the application of Sec. 92A submitted that sec. 92A(1)(a) does not apply to the Assessee's case, as neither Kuki, through /one or more intermediaries, controls the assessee nor the Assessee,…

Ambico Exports and Imports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6822/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 6822/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2013-14) It(Tp)A No.6822/Mum/2017(A.Y.2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92Section 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92CSection 92DSection 92F

…his contentions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Orchid Pharma Ltd. vs. DCIT, 143 DTR 34 (Bang-Trib) (ii) ACIT vs. Veer Gems, 77 taxmann.com 127 (Ahd-Trib) (iii) Kaybee Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 204 TTJ 921 (Mumbai) (iv) Page Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT, 159 ITD 680 (Bang) 4.3. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that in ground No.2 of the appeal the assessee has raised a legal ground i.e. the Assessing Officer has not served any show cause notice on assessee before making reference to TPO under section 92CA (1) of the Act. He asserted that the basic principle of natural justice was…

Sovereign Safeship Management Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(2)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2070/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laleit Kumar, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Soveresign Safeship Vs. Income Tax Officer Management Pvt. Ltd., Ward-13(2)-2, Shop No.37, M.M.R.D. Mumbai Market, Vansant Pride Thakur Complex Kandivali (East) Mumbai – 400 101 Pan/Gir No. Aamcs6425N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92ASection 92A(2)(c)

…er the other enterprises, the two enterprises cannot be said to be associated enterprises. That is a what coordinate bench decisions in the cases of Orchid Pharma Ltd Vs DCIT [(2016) 76 taxmann.com 63 (Chennai - Trib.)] and Page Industries Ltd Vs DCIT {(2016) 159 ITD 680 (Bang)] also hold. [Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us now]” It was further held in the decision of Mumbai Tribunal referred to supra as under:- “18. Learned representatives fairly agree that the case of the Assessing Officer hinges only on application of Section 92A(1) and it does not meet any of the specific conditions set out in Sectio…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4950/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…of the conclusions arrived in the Diageo decision. Learned counsel submits that the author of decision in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is co-author of one such subsequent decision in the case of Page Industries Ltd Vs DCIT [(2016) 159 ITD 680]. It is then pointed out that the author of decision in the case of Diageo India Ltd (supra) is also author of two such subsequent decisions in the cases of Orchid Pharma Ltd Vs DCIT [(2016) 76 taxmann.com 63] and ACIT Vs Veer Gems [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 127], and one of these decisions is specifically approved by Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in th…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4949/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2165/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2164/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

Shilpa Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 13, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Singh-Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 92ASection 92CSection 92F

…1 Shilpa Shetty Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “जे” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी श""जीत दे, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shilpa Shetty ACIT-Central Circle-13 बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम CGO Building Annex-11th Floor 7/D, Aditya Apartments, SVP Nagar Andheri (East) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 054. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ACPPS-6622-P (अ…

Shilpa Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 13, Mumbai

ITA 2445/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan

Section 92ASection 92A(2)(j)Section 92CSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SH. R. C. SHARMA, AM & HON’BLE SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shilpa Shetty ACIT CC – 13 बिधम/ 7/D, Aditya Apartments, SVP Mumbai Nagar, Andheri(west) Pin- Vs. Mumbai-400054 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. ACPPS6622P (अपीलाथी/Assessee) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri Arvind V. Sonde & Shri Haresh G. Buch, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri V. Jenardhanan, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/06/2018 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 21/08/2018 Date of Pron…

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

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER 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 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. Appe…

Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 771/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(i)

…d that two enterprises are associated enterprises. I.T.A. No. 771/CHNY/2016 Assessment year: 2011-12 Page 15 of 21 13. We may, at this stage, take note of decision of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Page Industries Limited Vs DCIT [(2016) 159 ITD 680 (Bang)]. That is a case in which the coordinate bench has held that even though the provisions of Section 92A(2)(g) are satisfied in a case, the assessee cannot be treated as an associate enterprise of the non resident company granting it licence to manufacture its products, because the provisions of Section 92A(1) are not satisfied. 14. As evid…