UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT

121 ITD 131Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#1632 most cited

What is UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT authority for?

For transfer pricing purposes, distinct international transactions, such as royalty payments and manufacturing, should be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated. The selection of comparables must be based on a thorough Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis, and loss-making entities are not automatically excluded if they satisfy other comparability criteria.

70

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

UCB India v ACIT · 121 ITD 131 · transfer pricing · aggregation of international transactions · separate benchmarking · royalty payments · FAR analysis · Functions Assets Risks · selection of comparables · loss-making comparables · arm's length principle · section 44DA

Also reported as

30 SOT 956 Taxmann.com 98

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 44BBSection 44DASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 115ASection 115A of the Income Tax ActSection 44BB of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 44dasection 293economic adjustmentsection 44bbsection 100profit split methodfar analysissection 44bresale price methodsection 44dbright line testsection 36(l)(va)

Judgments citing UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT

MARKS AND SPENCER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1937/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘I’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER Marks and Spencer (India) Private Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 1 (1), Plot No.64, 2nd Floor, Holly Hocks, Gurgaon. Sector 44, Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana). (PAN :AAECM3578J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Shri Harmeet Singh, AR REVENUE BY : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date of Order : 05.01.2026 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against…

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1256/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 80JSection 92C

…essee by aggregating the royalty payment\ntransaction with other transactions relating to\nmanufacturing activity cannot be accepted. In this\nregard, the TPO placed reliance on the decisions of\nHon'ble ITAT in the cases of UCB India (P) Ltd. V. ACIT\n(2009) 30 SOT 95 (Mumbai), Twinkle Diamond (2010-TII-\n09-ITAT-Mum-TP), Tez Diamond (2009-TII-02-ITAT-Mum-\nTP), Starlite Pvt. Ltd. (2010-TII-28-ITAT-Mum-TP) and the\ndecision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the\ncase of Knorr-Bremse India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 380\nITR 307 as also the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in\nthe case of Denso India Ltd.…

DY. COMMISSISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LIMITED, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 168/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…s making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

DY. COMMISSISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 167/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…s making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

DY. COMMISSISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 166/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…s making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

DY. COMMISSISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 165/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…s making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

DY. COMMISSISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 163/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…s making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD., DEHRADUN

ITA 5696/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

…making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

ITA 5647/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

…making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD., DEHRADUN

ITA 417/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

…making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

ITA 7848/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

…making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LTD., DEHRADUN

ITA 7477/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

…making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M E LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

ITA 7334/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

…making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

SERVIER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SERDIA PHARMACEUTICALS (I) P. LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6567/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.6567/मुं/2011 (िन.व. 2005-06) Servier India Private Limited [Formerly Known As Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt.Ltd.] 1703, 17Th Floor, B Wing, Parinee Crescenzo, Plot Nos C-38/39, “G” Block, Behind Mca, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaacs-6696-R ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-7(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Advocate With S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R , सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Advocate with S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar AdvocatesFor Respondent: S/Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR and Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)

…PO fails to qualify the test hence cannot be accepted. To support his submissions the ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 6 (i) Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 151 taxamann.com 77 (Mum-SB); (ii) USB India Pvt. Ltd. vs.ACIT, 121 ITD 131 (Mum); (iii) USB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.6454/Mum/2013 for A.Y. 2004-05 decided on 18/05/2016; (iv) DCIT vs. USB India Pvt. Ltd. , 70 taxmann.com 164 (Mum); (v) Gulbrandson Chemicals P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 104 taxmann.com 253 (Ahd) The ld.Counsel for the assessee finally submitted that if the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer to co…

DCIT, CIRCLE- II, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OEL TOOLS MIDDLE EAST LTD., DEHRADUN

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4424/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Ltd, C/O. Nangia & Co, 3Rd Floor, Ncr Circle-Ii, International Taxation, Dehradun Plaza, Municipal, No. 24A, New Cantt Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacw1542G

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Mayank Kumar, Adit CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…s making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different... 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.”…

GRUNER INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4062/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4062/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 15 Dsidc, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-10(2), Phase-Ii, Scheme-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg2938H Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated Xx.02.2019 Passed By The Ao U/S 254/143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ld that TNMM does not permit comparison enterprise level profits and that it requires comparison of net profit margin realized from an international transaction or aggregate of class of international transactions; (xi) UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 121 ITD 131 (Mum.) wherein it had been held that Rule 10B(1)(e) refers to net profit realised from international transactions and not of enterprise as a whole. The assessee cannot justify its inability to evaluate its transaction on stand-alone basis on the ground that there is no statuary requirement to maintain segmental data. Entity level comparison not p…

SMA NUTRITION INDIA PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271

…sactions are to be taken into consideration. Therefore, segmental results are to be considered and not the profit at entity level. ” Reliance in this regard is placed on tne decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of UCB India Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT 121 ITD 131 (Mum) wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal held as under (Pg 45 of CL PB): “Only in cases where profits of an enterprise are attributable to similar transactions and when an enterprise does not have any other transaction or activity which is not similar, and which distorts the profits, then probably the net margin derived by an enterprise may also be the…

TATA COFFEE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

ITA 647/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 92

…preferred over the other profit based methods. Reliance is placed in this regard on the following decisions: - Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 107 ITD 141/162 Taxman 119 (Bang.) (SB) - UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 30 SOT 95 (Mum.) - Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. Oy. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 406 (Mum.) - Intervet India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 39 SOT 93 (Mum.) - Asstt. CIT v. Dufon Laboratories [2010] 39 SOT 59 (Mum.) 11" (b) The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 44 SOT 391/9 taxmann.com 13 while dealing with the pri…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA COFFEE PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

ITA 560/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 92

…preferred over the other profit based methods. Reliance is placed in this regard on the following decisions: - Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 107 ITD 141/162 Taxman 119 (Bang.) (SB) - UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 30 SOT 95 (Mum.) - Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. Oy. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 406 (Mum.) - Intervet India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 39 SOT 93 (Mum.) - Asstt. CIT v. Dufon Laboratories [2010] 39 SOT 59 (Mum.) 11" (b) The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 44 SOT 391/9 taxmann.com 13 while dealing with the pri…

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC., DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3909/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4561/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3824/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smith International Inc., Vs Adit, 806-807, Powai Plaza, Central International Taxation, Avenue, Hiranandani Garden, Dehradun Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs3148R

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143Section 293ASection 42Section 44ASection 44BSection 44D

…king loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables, Imercius is a case in which not only functional area is different………….” 17. The above principle has also been upheld by other benches of ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Limited vs. ACIT (2009) (121 ITD 131) (Mumbai ITAT), ACIT vs. Wockhardt Limited (6 Taxmann.com 98) (Mumbai ITAT), Brigade Global Services Private Limited vs. ITO (ITA No 988/Hyd./2011) (Hyderabad ITAT). 18. In view of the orders of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, we hold that Koa Tools India Limited which clears the FAR test should not be rejected as a comparable for the AY 2009-10.…

Showing 1–20 of 70 · Page 1 of 4