Trib.) 8. Ariston Thermo India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

147 ITD 388Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#13092 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also reported as

36 Taxmann.com 501

Sections most often in play

Section 10B(1)(e)Section 10CA(7)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 190Section 192

Judgments citing Trib.) 8. Ariston Thermo India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Emerson Electric Company (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) Dcit, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [Pan No. Aaace1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER &GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) DCIT, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [PAN No. AAACE1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Dhanesh Bafna Advocate, Ms. Chandni Shah, Ms. Riddhi Maru & Ms. Kinjal Patel, CA’s Revenue by Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR Date of institution of appeal 14.09.2022 Date of hearing 05.05.2025 Date of p…

Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7470/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR
Section 143Section 92C(2)

…party is now well defined under the rule and further there is no provision under the rule, which bars the appellant being a tested party to make adjustment for difference to its operating margin. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of 147 ITD 388 Aristone Thermo India private limited versus DCIT. He further submitted several other judicial precedents wherein various coordinate benches have allowed an adjustment to be made to the operating margin of the tested party for comparability purposes. It was further his submission that rule 10 B (2) and (3) of the rules specifically provides that…

Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7469/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR
Section 143Section 92C(2)

…party is now well defined under the rule and further there is no provision under the rule, which bars the appellant being a tested party to make adjustment for difference to its operating margin. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of 147 ITD 388 Aristone Thermo India private limited versus DCIT. He further submitted several other judicial precedents wherein various coordinate benches have allowed an adjustment to be made to the operating margin of the tested party for comparability purposes. It was further his submission that rule 10 B (2) and (3) of the rules specifically provides that…

DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai vs. Schindler India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7330/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR
Section 143Section 92C(2)

…party is now well defined under the rule and further there is no provision under the rule, which bars the appellant being a tested party to make adjustment for difference to its operating margin. He referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of 147 ITD 388 Aristone Thermo India private limited versus DCIT. He further submitted several other judicial precedents wherein various coordinate benches have allowed an adjustment to be made to the operating margin of the tested party for comparability purposes. It was further his submission that rule 10 B (2) and (3) of the rules specifically provides that…

M/S. Wieland Metals India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward- 7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2394/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2394/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2015-16 Vs. M/s. Wieland Metals India Private Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 18A & B, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Ward 7(1)(3), Hebbagodi Village, Attibele Hobli, Bangalore. Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. PAN: AAACW 7975K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.P. Srinivas, CA Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 03.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 O R D E R Per Chan…

M/S. Lummus Technology Heat Transfer Bv, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 1817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subha Kant Sahu, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92C(2)

…, DCIT vs. Panasonic AVC Network India Co. Ltd. (2014) 63 SOT 121 (Delhi), HCL Technologies BPO Services Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 69 SOT 571 (Delhi), Bechtel India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 66 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi), Ariston Thermo India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2014) 147 ITD 388 (Pune) and DCIT vs. Genesis Integrating Systems (India) (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com 20 (Bangalore). 9 10. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the lower Revenue authorities. 11. When we examine page 36 of the paper book, it shows that the taxpayer has given the complete calculation as to how the idle…

M/S I2 Technolgoies Software Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)IV, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1208/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazit(Tp)A No.1208/Bang/2014 Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Jda Software Private Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, (‘Erstwhile I2 Technologies India Range 11, Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Tower A, Mantri Commercio, Near Sakra World Hospital, Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru-560103. Pan : Aaaci7334Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Arvind V. Sonde, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr-I Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri. Arvind V. Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I
Section 10Section 133(6)Section 92C

…– Trib.) 6. Dy. CIT V. Panasonic AVC Networks India Co. Ltd. [2014] 63 SOT 121 (URO)/42 taxmann.com 420 (Delhi – Trib.) 7. Dy. CIT V. Petro Araldite (P) Ltd., [2013] 145 ITD 182/35 taxmann.com 590 (Mum. – Trib.) 8. Ariston Thermo India Ltd., V. Dy. CIT [2014] 147 ITD 388 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 501 (Pune – Trib.) 9. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CJT [2014] 61 SOT 61 (RO)/[2013] 35 taxmann.com 144 (Bang. – Trib.) 10.Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P.) Ltd V. Asstt. CIT [2012] 28 taxmann.com 293 (Bang.). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoning of the learned CIT(A). Hence,…

DCIT vs. M/S Google India Pvt. Ltd

In the result, revenue’s appeal and C

ITA 1298/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S Jayaramanrevenue’S Appeal

For Appellant: Shri. S. P. Singh, CA & Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Renuka Devi, JCIT
Section 10ASection 260A

…– Trib.) 6. Dy. CIT V. Panasonic AVC Networks India Co. Ltd. [2014] 63 SOT 121 (URO)/42 taxmann.com 420 (Delhi – Trib.) 7. Dy. CIT V. Petro Araldite (P) Ltd., [2013] 145 ITD 182/35 taxmann.com 590 (Mum. – Trib.) 8. Ariston Thermo India Ltd., V. Dy. CIT [2014] 147 ITD 388 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 501 (Pune – Trib.) 9. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CJT [2014] 61 SOT 61 (RO)/[2013] 35 taxmann.com 144 (Bang. – Trib.) 10.Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P.) Ltd V. Asstt. CIT [2012] 28 taxmann.com 293 (Bang.). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoning of the learned CIT(A). Hence,…

Trib.) 8. Ariston Thermo India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (147 ITD 388) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax