Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

374 ITR 118High Court2015#139 most cited

What is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

499

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 374 ITR 118 · Section 92B · AMP expenditure · international transaction · bright line test · burden of proof · revenue

Also reported as

2015 SCC OnLine DEL 8083

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 144C(13)Section 92CSection 234BSection 14ASection 37Section 37(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expendituresection 92ffunctional analysiscost plus methodtested partysection 92c(3)section 92btransactional net margin methodcup methodbenchmarking analysiscomparable companies

Judgments citing Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Vf Brands India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1285/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1285/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)(ii)

…ustment. The Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) also confirmed the same. 11. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. Before us, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson (374 ITR 118) and submitted that “Residual profit split method” is not appropriate method to bench mark AMP transactions. He further submitted that the TPO was not justified in considering Royalty payments along with AMP expenses. The Ld D.R, however, supported the order passed by tax authorities. 12. The question of bench marking the AMP expenses has been ex…

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Shrivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

…ound - Remanded following the decision passed in assessee’s own case for AY 2011- 12. 3. 2010-11 2.06.2015 Remanded to the Two rounds of file of the TPO for litigation re-examination of the issue in light of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd : 374 ITR 118 (Del HC). 4. 2011-12 28.04.2017 Remanded to the Two rounds of file of the TPO for litigation. Assessee re-examination of is in the process of the issue in the filing an appeal light of Sony against the Final Ericsson Mobile assessment Order Communications before the Tribunal. India Pvt Ltd : (supra) 5. 2012-13 24.05.2017 Remanded to the Two round…

Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 6(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5157/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5157/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-6(1) बिाम/ Indiabulls Finance Centre Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg Vs. Elphinstone West, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-4313-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5035Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-6(1) Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ Mumbai. Indiabulls Finance Centre 6Th Floor, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg Vs. Elphinstone West, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-4313-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir Mistri-Ld. Sr. Counsel प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Deshpande & Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra-Ld.Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri-Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande & Shri Sushil
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92Section 92BSection 92F

…test or any other similar method which is not provided in the statute. It could be noted that this decision was delivered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court at a later point of time and after taking note of its own decision in Sony Ericson Mobile Communications (374 ITR 118). Therefore, the ratio laid down in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) would prevail and the ratio of the same would be applicable to the present appeal since facts are more or less similar. Similar is the view in various other decisions of Mumbai Tribunal which could be tabulated as under: - (i) Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. v/s. ACIT (2020; 121 taxmann…

M/S Shindengen India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3343/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3343/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.283/2, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle -6(1)(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Pan : Aarcs 8947 E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S. D. Kapila, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6-(1)(1), Bengaluru, U/S.143(3) Read With Sec.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The First Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Addition Made To The Total Income Of The Assessee Of A Sum Of Rs.21,61,37,271 Being An Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) U/S.92 Of The Act, In Respect Of An International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprise (Ae). The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Shindengen Electric Mfg Co., Ltd, Japan. It Was Incorporated In India On August 21, 2012 Under The Indian

For Appellant: Shri. S. D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

…bmitted that the method adopted by the TPO flouts the principle that the two methods cannot be combined for determining the ALP of purchases from AE. In this regard reference was made to decision in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del.) the Delhi High Court observed: "(vii) When the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer rejects the method adopted by the assessee, he is entitled to select the most appropriate method, and undertake a comparability analysis. Selection of the method and comparables should be as per the command and directive of the Act and Rules and justi…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu (OSD) Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2016/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussaain, CIT-DR
Section 192

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.2016/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 The Joint Commissioner of M/s.Toyota Kirloskar Motors Income-tax, LTU (OSD) Circle-1 Private Limited, Plot No.1, v. Bangalore. Bidadi Industrial Area, Ramanagar, Dist., Bidadi Bangalore – 562 109. PAN : AAACT5415B. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.1972/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Toyota Kirloskar Motors The Joint Commissioner of Private Limited, Plot No.1, Bidadi Income-tax, LTU (OSD) Circle- v. Industrial Area, Ramanagar, Dist., 1 Bangalo…

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1972/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussaain, CIT-DR
Section 192

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.2016/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 The Joint Commissioner of M/s.Toyota Kirloskar Motors Income-tax, LTU (OSD) Circle-1 Private Limited, Plot No.1, v. Bangalore. Bidadi Industrial Area, Ramanagar, Dist., Bidadi Bangalore – 562 109. PAN : AAACT5415B. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.1972/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Toyota Kirloskar Motors The Joint Commissioner of Private Limited, Plot No.1, Bidadi Income-tax, LTU (OSD) Circle- v. Industrial Area, Ramanagar, Dist., 1 Bangalo…

Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2968/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1594/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ward-11(1), Ltd., Building No. 1, Okhla Phase- New Delhi Iii, Near Modi Mill, New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch3162L

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92B

…Rs.25,17,20,341/- being the purported difference on account of advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee. 7. The ld. DRP following the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sony Erickson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. 374 ITR 118 rejected the application of BLT and directed the computation by considering Cost Plus Method (CPM) as the most appropriate method leading to adjustment of Rs.11,19,14,589/-. ITA Nos. 1594 & 2968/Del/2016 5 Haier Appliances India (P) Ltd. 8. Further, we find that the similar issue has been adjudicated in the case of the assessee for the earlier y…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1594/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1594/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ward-11(1), Ltd., Building No. 1, Okhla Phase- New Delhi Iii, Near Modi Mill, New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch3162L

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92B

…Rs.25,17,20,341/- being the purported difference on account of advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee. 7. The ld. DRP following the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sony Erickson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. 374 ITR 118 rejected the application of BLT and directed the computation by considering Cost Plus Method (CPM) as the most appropriate method leading to adjustment of Rs.11,19,14,589/-. ITA Nos. 1594 & 2968/Del/2016 5 Haier Appliances India (P) Ltd. 8. Further, we find that the similar issue has been adjudicated in the case of the assessee for the earlier y…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Neac, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana-121001. Pan-Aaacg3511H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Surendra Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…ourt in the case of ACIT vs. Lumax Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 102/2014). 11. The assessee has also rightly made reference to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (ITA No 16/2014) reported at 374 ITR 118, wherein, the Court has upheld clubbing of closely linked transactions for undertaking benchmarking analysis applying entity wise TNMM. In fact, in the case of CIT vs. Reebok India Co Ltd (ITA no 213/2014), being part of the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sony Erickson, the Court has held as under: “185. Royalty payable for availi…

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…cturers, but this does not mean that advertisement expenditure fails to meet the requirement of "wholly and exclusively". Law in this regard is well settled" Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT : 374 ITR 118, too, held [Pg. 265 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07]: "54 Expenditure and decision of the appellant, whether or not to incur the said expenditure; the quantum thereof, cannot be a subject matter of challenge or disallowance by the Assessing Officer, once it is accepted that the expenditure was wholly, i.e. the quantum of expenditure incurred was fully,…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 8700/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

…ing aggrieved by the above proposed transfer pricing adjustment, the assessee filed detailed objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP, while referring to decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications reported in 374 ITR 118(Del), has examined the contentions put forth by the assessee before it as under:- Sub Grounds of Appeal summarized Sony Ericsson High Court order as per issue from Form 35A dt.16March, 2015 Re-characterization of expenses Upheld at Para 64 page 48 of 142 incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden…

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Renfro India P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1963/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1963/मुं/2014 ("न. व .2009-10) It(Tp)A No.1963/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 143(3)

…ed by the AE from a third party. To support this argument the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Global Vantedge Pvt. Ltd., 45 taxamman.com 475 (Del); 2. Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 374 ITR 118 (Del); 4. HCL Technologies BPO Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, 60 taxmann.com 186 (Del-Trib.) 6. Per contra, Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra representing the Department vehemently defended the order of TPO and directions of the DRP in applying TNMM to benchmark the international transactions. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the DRP has erre…

Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 15(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 126/Del/2018: Asstt. Year: 2013-14 M/S Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, 7Th Floor, Dlf Building No. 9, Tower- Circle-15(2), B, Phase-Iii, Dlf Cyber City, New Delhi Gurgaon (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl3871C

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surendrapal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 126/Del/2018: Asstt. Year: 2013-14 M/s Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, 7th Floor, DLF Building No. 9, Tower- Circle-15(2), B, Phase-III, DLF Cyber City, New Delhi Gurgaon (APPELLANTT (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCL3871C Assessee by : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Surendrapal, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 23.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee a…

Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 901/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

Section 143(3)

…viewed in their totality, differ from those which would have been adopted by independent enterprises behaving in a commercially rational manner." Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (I) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 374 ITR 118/231 Taxman 113/55 taxmann.com 240 relying upon its earlier decision in the case of EKL Appliances Ltd. (supra) held as under: "147. Tax authorities examine a related and associated parties" transaction as actually undertaken and structured by the parties. Normally, tax authorities cannot disregard the actual transaction or I.T.A. No.901/Mum/2015…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2114/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of ITANo. Name of Appellant No. Year Respondent Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3492/Ahd/2015 Gujarat High Court, J.C.I.T, 1. 2010-11 S.G. Highway, Range-4, Gota, Ahmedabad- Ahmedabad 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3470/Ahd/2015 D.C.I.T, Gujarat High Court, 2. 2010-11 Circle-2(1)(2), S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle-2(1) (2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1751/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of ITANo. Name of Appellant No. Year Respondent Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3492/Ahd/2015 Gujarat High Court, J.C.I.T, 1. 2010-11 S.G. Highway, Range-4, Gota, Ahmedabad- Ahmedabad 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3470/Ahd/2015 D.C.I.T, Gujarat High Court, 2. 2010-11 Circle-2(1)(2), S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2293/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of ITANo. Name of Appellant No. Year Respondent Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3492/Ahd/2015 Gujarat High Court, J.C.I.T, 1. 2010-11 S.G. Highway, Range-4, Gota, Ahmedabad- Ahmedabad 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3470/Ahd/2015 D.C.I.T, Gujarat High Court, 2. 2010-11 Circle-2(1)(2), S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3492/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of ITANo. Name of Appellant No. Year Respondent Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3492/Ahd/2015 Gujarat High Court, J.C.I.T, 1. 2010-11 S.G. Highway, Range-4, Gota, Ahmedabad- Ahmedabad 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3470/Ahd/2015 D.C.I.T, Gujarat High Court, 2. 2010-11 Circle-2(1)(2), S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lamda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3470/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of ITANo. Name of Appellant No. Year Respondent Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3492/Ahd/2015 Gujarat High Court, J.C.I.T, 1. 2010-11 S.G. Highway, Range-4, Gota, Ahmedabad- Ahmedabad 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3470/Ahd/2015 D.C.I.T, Gujarat High Court, 2. 2010-11 Circle-2(1)(2), S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad…

Lambda Therapeutic Research Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of ITANo. Name of Appellant No. Year Respondent Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3492/Ahd/2015 Gujarat High Court, J.C.I.T, 1. 2010-11 S.G. Highway, Range-4, Gota, Ahmedabad- Ahmedabad 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. Lambda House. Opp. 3470/Ahd/2015 D.C.I.T, Gujarat High Court, 2. 2010-11 Circle-2(1)(2), S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad…