Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications 374 ITR 118 (Del), Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. v. DIT

354 ITR 638High Court2013#9946 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10B(1)Section 10B(2)Section 10B(3)Section 10B(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

working capital adjustment comparable companies tnmm section 92ca associated enterprise international transaction previous year company section 143(3)india business

Judgments citing Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications 374 ITR 118 (Del), Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. v. DIT

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4783/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…The language of Rule 10B(4) does not leave any scope for ambiguity on this issue. This Court notices that this very ground- i.e applicability of previous years' data for reaching out comparables, was sought to be urged in Marubeni India (P) Ltd. v. DIT [2013] 354 ITR 638/215 Taxman 122 (Mag.)/33 taxmann.com.100 (Delhi) but deliberately left moot, because the assessee had given it up before the Tribunal. The TPO in his order dated 03.10.2011 has comprehensively examined the authorities on this issue and rightly held that ordinarily, the revenue has to consider only the relevant assessment year's data under Rule 10…

BUNDY INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1764/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…he language of Rule 10B(4) does not leave any scope for ambiguity on this issue. This Court notices that this very ground- i.e applicability of previous years' data for reaching out comparables, was sought to be urged in Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. v. DIT [2013] 354 ITR 638/215 Taxman 122 (Mag.)/33 taxmann.com 100 (Delhi) but deliberately left moot, because the assessee had given it up before the Tribunal. The TPO in his order dated 03.10.2011 has comprehensively examined the authorities on this issue and rightly held that ordinarily, the revenue has to consider only the relevant assessment year's data under Rule 10…

HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 682/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…eliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - Grupo Antolin India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT ([2019] 105 taxmann.com 31 (Pune - Trib.); - HOV Services Ltd. v. JCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 311 (Pune - Trib.); and - Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. v. DIT [2013] 354 ITR 638. It was submitted that the above expenses ought to be excluded from the operating expenses while computing the operating margin. More importantly, it was submitted that the above costs have no impact on the international transaction entered into by the assessee and therefore they cannot be considered as a part of operating cost base. The followin…

EVALUESERVE.COM P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5148/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Antil. Sr. DR

…them when determining the PLI of the comparables. Hence, the Ld. AR submitted that TPO must apply these Safe Harbour Rules when determining the PLI of the Assessee also. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments- •Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. v. DIT 120131 354 ITR 638/215 Taxman 122 (Maq.)/33 taxmann.com 100 (Delhi)- Delhi High Court • CIT vs. Transwitch India (P.) Ltd ITA No. 678/2012- Delhi High Court • HOV Services Ltd. vs. JCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 311 (Pune - Trib.) • HCL Technologies BPO Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 120151 60 taxmann.com 186/69 SOT 571 (Delhi-Trib) • Dy. CIT v. Exxon Mobil Gas (India) (P…

DCIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4Th Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, Aayakarbhavan, 4Th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Aaach0968B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani / Ms. Shweta Mahadik, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hindustan Construction Co. Assistant Commissioner of Ltd.,Hincon House, L.B.S. Vs. Income Tax-14(2)(1), Marg, Vikhroli (West), 4th floor, AayakarBhavan, Mumbai-400083. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACH0968B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 The D.C.I.T.-14(2)(1), Hindustan Construction 432, AayakarBhavan, 4th Vs. Co. Ltd.,Hincon House, 11th floor, M.K. Marg, Floor,247 Park, L.B.S. Mumbai-400020. Marg, Vikhroli (West),…

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2351/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. Mahajani / Ms. Shweta Mahadik, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/PUN/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)

…, being of an extra- ordinary and exceptional in nature, we find force in the argument of the learned A.R. for its exclusion in the light of the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd Vs DIT reported in (2013) 354 ITR 638 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has upheld the exclusion of payment of compensation for closure of Indian units by the associated enterprise by considering it to be an abnormal item of expenses and excluding it while computing operating profits. We are of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the…

GRUPO ANTOLIN INDIA PVT. LTD., (ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS GRUPO ANTOLIN PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

…shares, restructuring options like ESOP, etc. were to be granted adjustment while determining arm's length price. The Pune Bench of Tribunal in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DIT (2013) 354 ITR 638 (Del), held as under:- “39. We find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the expenditure incurred on account of GDR issue, buyback of shares and restructuring options like ESOP etc. amounting to Rs.1,02,17,339/- should be considered as nonoperating expenses while determining the operating margin of the assessee. Simila…

EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1466/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…them when determining the PLI of the comparables. Hence, the Ld. AR submitted that TPO must apply these Safe Harbour Rules when determining the PLI of the Assessee also. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments- • Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. v. DIT 120131 354 ITR 638/215 Taxman 122 (Maq.)/33 taxmann.com 100 (Delhi)- Delhi High Court • CIT vs. Transwitch India (P.) Ltd ITA No. 678/2012- Delhi High Court • HOV Services Ltd. vs. JCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 311 (Pune - Trib.) HCL Technologies BPO Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 120151 60 • taxmann.com 186/69 SOT 571 (Delhi-Trib) • Dy. CIT v. Exxon Mobil Gas (India…

EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 6310/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…them when determining the PLI of the comparables. Hence, the Ld. AR submitted that TPO must apply these Safe Harbour Rules when determining the PLI of the Assessee also. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments- • Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. v. DIT 120131 354 ITR 638/215 Taxman 122 (Maq.)/33 taxmann.com 100 (Delhi)- Delhi High Court • CIT vs. Transwitch India (P.) Ltd ITA No. 678/2012- Delhi High Court • HOV Services Ltd. vs. JCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 311 (Pune - Trib.) HCL Technologies BPO Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 120151 60 • taxmann.com 186/69 SOT 571 (Delhi-Trib) • Dy. CIT v. Exxon Mobil Gas (India…

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2712/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageswar Rao, Sandeep Karhail and Parth, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Govil, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 92CSection 92C(2)

…n’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT (the judgment relied upon by the ld. CIT (A)) and also in the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Marubeni India Private Limited vs. Director of Income-tax reported in 354 ITR 638. 11.5 After hearing the rival submissions, we notice that in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2002-03, the matter has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. It has been brought to our notice that this order of the Tribunal is subject matter of appeal to the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court u/s 260A of the Act. It was subm…