PCIT v. Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd.

381 ITR 38High Court2016#10901 most cited

What is PCIT v. Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd. authority for?

The business model adopted by an assessee can meet the test of arm's length price determination under rule 10BA, and bonafide quotations can be covered under Rule 10AB.

10

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

PCIT v. Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd. · rule 10BA · rule 10AB · arm's length price · transfer pricing · bonafide quotations

Also reported as

66 Taxmann.com 53

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 201(1A)Section 234CSection 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(ii)section 54esection 115jcsection 54ecminimum alternate taxsection 112section 80ib(10)prejudicial to interest of revenuesection 92fsection 40(a)(ii)section 115jafar analysis

Judgments citing PCIT v. Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd.

Takenaka India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. JCIT (OSD) Circle-25(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 5581/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Cit (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aadct6143P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Cit(A)”)-44, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Correctness Of The Order On Following Grounds:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/s. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., vs CIT (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. PAN-AADCT6143P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent by Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…opted by the assessee, in principle, meets the test of arm’s length price determination under rule 10BA as well.” The above decision of the Delhi Tribunal has since been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd. 381 ITR 38 (Del-HC)]. Similar view has also taken in ACIT vs. Adani Wilmar Ltd., 64 SOT 0122 (Ahd – Trib.) as affirmed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Adani Wilmar Ltd., 363 ITR 0338 (Guj-HC). 39. We, therefore, considering the detailed findings of the ld. CIT (A) along with the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Courts a…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…opted by the assessee, in principle, meets the test of arm’s length price determination under rule 10BA as well.” The above decision of the Delhi Tribunal has since been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd. 381 ITR 38 (Del-HC)]. Similar view has also taken in ACIT vs. Adani Wilmar Ltd., 64 SOT 0122 (Ahd – Trib.) as affirmed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Adani Wilmar Ltd., 363 ITR 0338 (Guj-HC). 39. We, therefore, considering the detailed findings of the ld. CIT (A) along with the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Courts a…

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1735/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

…33/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2012-13) Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd Le, the time when transfer pricing provisions were introduced in India." 4.40. Further, this decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal is also affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (381 ITR 38). 4.41. In conclusion, the Appellant most respectfully submits that the offer letter dated 11 August 2009 bears closest resemblance to the disputed transaction and the same should be accepted as comparable uncontrolled price for benchmarking this transaction. Accordingly, the transaction should be considered to be at arm's length and the adjustmen…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

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

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

…ered under the purview of the expression ‘price which….would have been charged or Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. paid’ used in Rule 10AB of the Rules. [Since upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT -vs.- Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd. [(2016) 381 ITR 38 (Del - HC)] [Pg No. 285- 287 of CLPB]. Similar view also taken in ACIT -vs.- Adani Wilmar Ltd. [(2014) 64 SOT 0122 (Ahd - Trib.)] as affirmed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT - vs.- Adani Wilmar Ltd. [(2014) 363 ITR 0338 (Guj - HC)]. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in Gulf Energy Maritime S…

First Credit Ites P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt.Dy/CIT/ITO, National E -Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1183/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am First Credit Ites P. Ltd. The Addl. Commissioner Of D-211, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Income-Tax Officer Behind R-City Mall, National E-Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Vs. Centre, Ghatkopar West, Delhi-110003 Mumbai-400 086 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aabcf5210B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM First Credit ITES P. Ltd. The Addl. Commissioner of D-211, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Income-Tax Officer Behind R-City Mall, National e-Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Vs. Centre, Ghatkopar West, Delhi-110003 Mumbai-400 086 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AABCF5210B Assessee by : Shri Sunil Moti Lala, AR Revenue by : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR Date of hearing: 22.02.2022 Date of pronouncement : 18.05.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by First Credit ITES Pvt. Limited…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (AM) & Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.(TP)A. No. 1547/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.(TP)A. No. 2733/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.(TP)A. No. 5842/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ACIT(Large Taxpayer Unit)-2 M/s. Reliance World Trade Centre 1 Vs. Industries limited 29th Floor, Cuffe Parade Maker Chambers IV Mumbai-400 005. 3rd Floor, 222 Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.(TP)A. No. 1280/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.(TP)A. No. 2414/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.(TP)A. No.…

Topcon Singapore Positioning Pte Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, while ITA No

ITA 5030/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Is A Singapore Based Company Which Held 7,49,999 Shares In An Indian Company By The Name Of Topcon Sokkia India Pvt Ltd (Tsipl, In Short) & 1 Share

Section 143(3)

…s method to be retrospective in effect right from the time the transfer pricing provisions have been introduced, and this coordinate bench decision has been upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd [(2016) 381 ITR 38 (Del)]. The question, therefore, that we need to consider is as to on what basis the price which would have been charged for sale of these shares can be ascertained. On this aspect, we find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CGT Vs Kusumben D Mahadevia [(1980) 122 ITR 38 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, ob…

Topcon Singapore Positioning Pte Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, while ITA No

ITA 2/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Is A Singapore Based Company Which Held 7,49,999 Shares In An Indian Company By The Name Of Topcon Sokkia India Pvt Ltd (Tsipl, In Short) & 1 Share

Section 143(3)

…s method to be retrospective in effect right from the time the transfer pricing provisions have been introduced, and this coordinate bench decision has been upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd [(2016) 381 ITR 38 (Del)]. The question, therefore, that we need to consider is as to on what basis the price which would have been charged for sale of these shares can be ascertained. On this aspect, we find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CGT Vs Kusumben D Mahadevia [(1980) 122 ITR 38 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, ob…

Gulf Energy Maritime Service P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3812/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

…I.T.A. No.3812/Mum/2015 Assessment year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.3812/Mum/2015 Assessment year: 2011-12 Gulf Energy Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. ……….………………….Appellant Unit No. 406/407, A Wing, Atrium, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai 400 093 [PAN: AADCG4829K] Vs. Income Tax Officer ……..…………….…Respondent Ward 8 (1)(4), Mumbai Appearances by: None for the appellant N Sathya Moorthy for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : January 7, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : February 29, 2016 ORD…

PCIT v. Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd. (381 ITR 38) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax