Tweezerman (India) P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

133 TTJ 308Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#4131 most cited

What is Tweezerman (India) P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot reduce eligible profits under section 80-IA(10) read with section 10B(7) based on an arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating how that price was determined.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Tweezerman India v Addl CIT · 80-IA(10) · 10B(7) · arm's length price · Transfer Pricing Officer · eligible profits · unsustainable reduction

Also reported as

4 ITR (Trib) 130

Judgments citing Tweezerman (India) P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 833/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

…. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad be said that only because average profit earned by comparables is 15%, the profit earned by assessee at 50% is not reasonable. The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in case of Tweezmen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT, 133 TTJ 308 while considering similar issue held that the provisions of section 80IA(10) do not give arbitrary power to AO to fix the profits of assessee. AO has to specify as to why he feels that profits of assessee are being shown at higher figure. AO has to further show as to how he has computed ordinary profits which he deems to be profit which assessee…

Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 832/HYD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

…. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad be said that only because average profit earned by comparables is 15%, the profit earned by assessee at 50% is not reasonable. The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in case of Tweezmen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT, 133 TTJ 308 while considering similar issue held that the provisions of section 80IA(10) do not give arbitrary power to AO to fix the profits of assessee. AO has to specify as to why he feels that profits of assessee are being shown at higher figure. AO has to further show as to how he has computed ordinary profits which he deems to be profit which assessee…

Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 831/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

…. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad be said that only because average profit earned by comparables is 15%, the profit earned by assessee at 50% is not reasonable. The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in case of Tweezmen India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT, 133 TTJ 308 while considering similar issue held that the provisions of section 80IA(10) do not give arbitrary power to AO to fix the profits of assessee. AO has to specify as to why he feels that profits of assessee are being shown at higher figure. AO has to further show as to how he has computed ordinary profits which he deems to be profit which assessee…

Asst CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zydus Nycomed Healthcare P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 3336/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Acit 15(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Zydus Nycomed Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-4 Mid, Vill. Pawane, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Thane Belapur Road, Vashi, Karve Road, Mumbai- Navi Mumbai-400705. 400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4670/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) M/S. Zydus Nycomed Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-4 Mid, Vill. Pawane, Aayakar Bhavan,Maharshi Thane Belapur Road, Vashi, Karve Road, Mumbai- Navi Mumbai-400705. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz0736D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Assessee By: Shri B. V. Jhaveri (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2011-12. I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 4670/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…td. 89 ITD 518 (Born) held the AO's decision to be unjustified. 2.4.18 Reliance in this regard was also placed on the decisions in the following other cases 1. Zavata India (P) Ltd. (2013) 31 taxmann.com 147 (Hyderabad). ii. Tweezerman (India) P. Ltd. [2010] 133 TTJ 308 (Chennai) iii. Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 103 TTJ 329 (Bang.) iv.Visual Graphics Computing Services (India) P. Ltd. 52 SOT 172 (Chennai) - the AO was not justified to invoke the provision of section 80IA(10) r.w.s 10A(7) so as to reduce the eligible profits. I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 4670/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12 2.4.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2336/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 4, Pune …. Vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bhageerath, 402, Senapati Bapat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411016 Pan: Aabcp1209Q

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…f the Transfer Pricing Officer. In fact these issues have already been considered in various orders of the Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench in the case of Tweezerman (India) P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2010] 4 ITR (Trib) 130 (Chennai) (133 TTJ 308) has considered the matter in detail and held that the reduction of eligible profits of an assessee as done by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 80-IA(10) read with section 10B(7), in the context of the Transfer Pricing Officer's order is unsustainable. The Tribunal has held that the Assessing Officer was not justified t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 473/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kamal ShaneyFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan
Section 10ASection 10A(7)

…the Transfer Pricing Officer. In fact these issues have already been considered in various orders of the Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench in the case of Tweezerman (India) P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2010] 4 ITR (Trib) 130 (Chennai) (133 TTJ 308) has considered the matter in detail and held that the reduction of eligible profits of an assessee as done by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 80-IA(10) read with section 10B(7), in the context of the Transfer Pricing Officer's order is unsustainable. The Tribunal has held that the Assessing Officer was not justified t…

M/S. Honeywell Automation India Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 446/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kamal ShaneyFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan
Section 10ASection 10A(7)

…the Transfer Pricing Officer. In fact these issues have already been considered in various orders of the Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench in the case of Tweezerman (India) P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2010] 4 ITR (Trib) 130 (Chennai) (133 TTJ 308) has considered the matter in detail and held that the reduction of eligible profits of an assessee as done by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 80-IA(10) read with section 10B(7), in the context of the Transfer Pricing Officer's order is unsustainable. The Tribunal has held that the Assessing Officer was not justified t…

M/S. A B Knowledge Systems, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 894/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.894/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ab Knowledge Systems, 406, Lunkad Sky Station, Viman Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aarfa5025E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 7(3), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80Section 80I

…f the Transfer Pricing Officer. In fact these issues have already been considered in various orders of the Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench in the case of Tweezerman (India) P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2010] 4 ITR (Trib) 130 (Chennai) (133 TTJ 308) has considered the matter in detail and held that the reduction of eligible profits of an assessee as done by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 80-IA(10) read with section 10B(7), in the context of the Transfer Pricing Officer's order is unsustainable. The Tribunal has held that the Assessing Officer was not justified t…