Trib.), Oriflame India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

68 Taxmann.com 247Reported decision2016#25624 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2020.

Judgments citing Trib.), Oriflame India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

ASST CIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. DOKA INDIA P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 1912/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1912/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-15(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Doka India Pvt. Ltd. 483A, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Plot No. 26A, Sector-7, 601 Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400021. To 606, Mahavir Landmark Bldg, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-410210. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd7895H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anand Mohan (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/ Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short “The Act”) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel – I, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Drp”] Dated 29.12.2015 Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/ Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

…TNMM. In this regard, we also find support of the decision in the case of Seminis Vegetable Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (62 Taxmann.com 283 (Mum), ACIT Vs. AO Smith India Water Products Pvt. Ltd. (98 Taxmann.com 295 (Bang), DCIT Vs. Delta Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (68 Taxmann.com 247 Del) & Clariant Chemicals (India) Ltd. Vs. JCIT (44 taxmann.com 421 (Mum). In the above discussion, we are of the view that the DRP has rightly directed the AO to apply the RPM method and direct to AO to delete the additions. We nowhere found any illegality and infirmity in the direction of the DRP. We also nowhere found any reasonable gro…

Trib.), Oriflame India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (68 Taxmann.com 247) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax