Sabic Innovative Plastic India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

59 SOT 138Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#10840 most cited

What is Sabic Innovative Plastic India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

An associate enterprise cannot be considered a comparable entity for transfer pricing adjustments as it lacks the independent nature of an uncontrolled transaction. The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method requires comparing prices of products or services in uncontrolled transactions, not profit margins.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Sabic Innovative Plastic India · ITAT · associate enterprise · comparable · uncontrolled transaction · transfer pricing · CUP method · profit margin · arm's length price

Also reported as

35 Taxmann.com 177

Judgments citing Sabic Innovative Plastic India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Auronext Pharma Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 486/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri B.G.ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

…e Limited vs ACIT, in ITA No. 2185 of 2017. Hon'ble bench in para 4 of the order noted as below- "Faced with this situation, we quote Tecnimont Icb Pvt Ltd., Mumbai Vs. ACIT (2012) 138 ITO 23 (Mumbai) and Sabic Innovative Plastic India Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT (2013) 59 SOT 138 (Ahmedabad) holding that an associate enterprise itself would not to be taken as a comparable since lacking the independent nature of an uncontrolled transaction in forming hallmark of Chapter X of the Act. We thus delete the impugned arms length price adjustment on receivables for this precise reason alone.” 8.0 Hence Hon'ble jurisdictional bench…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 559/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 559/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. On Coastal Highway, Vadodara. Mujpur, Tal. Padra, Vadodara.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT.D.R
Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…aw that it is only an uncontrolled price which can be compared with controlled price and used for any benchmarking. This position has been well summarized in a coordinate bench decision in the case of Sabic Innovative Plastic India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 59 SOT 138/35 taxmann.com 177 (Ahd.), and we are in considered agreement with the same. 13. When comparing the prices of products sold in intra AE transactions vis-a-vis independent transactions, it is not sufficient to compare the prices de hors the economic circumstances in which the respective AE and non AE transactions take place. This principle is beyon…

Nektar Therapeutics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle-5(1), Hyderbad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 203/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Nektar Therapeutics India Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad. Pan Aaccn1489R …..Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Suyash Sinha (A.R.)For Respondent: Shri YVST Sai (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92B

…ted that the TPO sought for the assessee’s credit period in light of its inter-company agreement with its AEs only which is not permissible in light of Technimont ICV Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Addl. CIT 138 ITD 23 (Mum) (TM) and Sabic Innovative Plastics Vs. DCIT (2013) 59 SOT 138 (Ahm.) that an AE is nowhere contemplated as a comparable in transfer pricing regime since lacking uncontrolled transaction. This is also coupled with the fact that the learned lower authority(ies) have adopted SBI short-term deposit interest rate for benchmarking than the “LIBOR” in international transactions. We thus delete the impugned ALP a…

Corteva Agriscience Services India Private Limited(Formerly Known As E.I .Dupont Services Center India Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-१७(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2185/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Corteva Agriscience Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Services India Private Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle 17(1), As E.I. Dupont Service Hyderabad. Centre India Private Limited), 8Th, 9Th Floor, Tower 2.1, Waverock Building, Syno.115(P), Nanakramguda Village, Serlingampally, Hyderabad, Rangareddy, Telangana. Pan : Aacce0509M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.R. Vasudevan. Revenue By: Sri Rohit Mujumdar – Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 31.10.2017 In Case No.0520/2016-17/Cit(A)-5 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 1 Heard Both Sides. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…horities have not adopted any segmental comparable whilst arriving at the impugned adjustment. 4. Faced with this situation, we quote Tecnimont Icb Pvt Ltd., Mumbai Vs. ACIT (2012) 138 ITD 23 (Mumbai) and Sabic Innovative Plastic India Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT (2013) 59 SOT 138 (Ahmedabad) holding that an associate enterprise itself would not to be taken as a comparable since lacking the independent nature of an uncontrolled transaction in forming hallmark of Chapter X of the Act. We thus delete the impugned arms length price adjustment on receivables for this precise reason alone. 2 5. All the other pleadings on merits…

Dst Worldwide Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1979/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Kiresh Shivkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…rned lower authorities have adopted the assessee’s AE’s only as a benchmarking comparable(s) which is not sustainable in law as per Tehnimont ICB Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 138 ITD 33 (Mum) (TM) and Sabic Innovative Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 59 SOT 138 (Ahd) holding that such an arrangement lacks uncontrolled transaction. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned ALP adjustment of Rs.16,82,292/- for this precise reason alone. All other arguments on merits are rendered infructuous. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 1…

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…he Revenue’s argument that this tribunal has already directed the TPO to go by the agreement between an assessee and its AEs, we quote Technimont ICB Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl.CIT [138 ITD 23] (ITAT, Mum) (TM) and Sabic Innovative Plastic India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 59 SOT 138 (Ahd) that an AE could not be adopted as a tested party since lacking uncontrolled comparable transactions. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT Vs B R Constructions [(1992) 222 ITR 202 AP Full Court] holds that a co-ordinate bench decision not taking into consideration the relevant law and facts; as the case may be, is not a bindin…

Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4093/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11 Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 861-862, Joshi Road, Circle-13(1), Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco8042K

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivas Rao, Sr. DR
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : FRIDAY I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Otsuka Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 861-862, Joshi Road, Circle-13(1), Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACO8042K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta, CA Revenue by : Shri A. Srinivas Rao, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-44, New Delhi, dated 29th February,…

Gulbrandsen Chemicals Private Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

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

ITA 2276/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 274Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…aw that it is only an uncontrolled price which can be compared with controlled price and used for any benchmarking. This position has been well summarized in a coordinate bench decision in the case of Sabic Innovative Plastic India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 59 SOT 138/35 taxmann.com 177 (Ahd.), and we are in considered agreement with the same. 13. When comparing the prices of products sold in intra AE transactions vis-à-vis independent transactions, it is not sufficient to compare the prices de hors the economic circumstances in which the respective AE and non AE transactions take place. This principle is beyo…

Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 874/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 92

…aw that it is only an uncontrolled price which can be compared with controlled price and used for any benchmarking. This position has been well summarized in a coordinate bench decision in the case of Sabic Innovative Plastic India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 59 SOT 138/35 taxmann.com 177 (Ahd.), and we are in considered agreement with the same. 13. When comparing the prices of products sold in intra AE transactions vis-à-vis independent transactions, it is not sufficient to compare the prices de hors the economic circumstances in which the respective AE and non AE transactions take place. This principle is beyo…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., Baroda

Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 760/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 92

…aw that it is only an uncontrolled price which can be compared with controlled price and used for any benchmarking. This position has been well summarized in a coordinate bench decision in the case of Sabic Innovative Plastic India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 59 SOT 138/35 taxmann.com 177 (Ahd.), and we are in considered agreement with the same. 13. When comparing the prices of products sold in intra AE transactions vis-à-vis independent transactions, it is not sufficient to compare the prices de hors the economic circumstances in which the respective AE and non AE transactions take place. This principle is beyo…

Sabic Innovative Plastic India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (59 SOT 138) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax