UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT

121 ITD 131Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#1621 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 366,339 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

Smith International Inc., Mumbai vs. ADIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 3824/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.…

ADIT, 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 4651/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

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.…

Smith International Inc., Mumbai vs. ADIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 4561/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

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.…

Viacom 18 Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

ITA 8754/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…count, itself, the action of the Transfer Pricing Officer fails. For this proposition, the learned A.R. placed reliance on the following decisions:– i) Tecnimont ICB (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, [2012] 24 Taxmann.com 28 (Mum. Trib.); and ii) DCB India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 121 ITD 131 (Mum. Trib.). 109. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the authorities below and submitted that the non–charging of interest to non–A.E. are irrelevant. The undue advantage passed on to the A.E. is not acceptable and the Transfer Pricing provision is applicable. 47 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 110. Considered the riva…

Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6877/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2011-12 Hapag-Llyod India Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of 403 & 404, Satellite Gazebo A Income Tax (10(1)(1), Wing, 4Th Floor, Guru Hargovindji Room No. 209, Aayakar Bhawan, Marg, Andheri (E), Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabch7319B

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Pranay Gandi (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra (DR)
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hapag-Llyod India Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner of 403 & 404, Satellite Gazebo A Income Tax (10(1)(1), Wing, 4th Floor, Guru Hargovindji Room No. 209, Aayakar Bhawan, Marg, Andheri (E), Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABCH7319B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora & Pranay Gandi (ARs) Revenue by : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra (DR) Date of Hearing: 07/07/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 23/07/2021 O R D E…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai vs. Usv Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…lengths and therefore, he cannot accept TNMM for only part of the same transaction. The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in Amphenol Interconnect India Pvt. Ltd. (302 ITR 131) (Bom HC); Wrigley India (ITA No. 5648/Del/2012) (Del Trib.); UCB India Pvt. Ltd. (121 ITD 131) (Mum) ; Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. (45 SOT 37) (Ahd Trib.). On specific functional differences, the Ld. counsel relies on the decision in Aztech Software & Technology Services Ltd. v. ACIT (249 ITR (AT) 32) Bang ITAT Special Bench, Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (109 ITD 101) Del ITAT, Firme…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai vs. Usv Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4914/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…lengths and therefore, he cannot accept TNMM for only part of the same transaction. The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in Amphenol Interconnect India Pvt. Ltd. (302 ITR 131) (Bom HC); Wrigley India (ITA No. 5648/Del/2012) (Del Trib.); UCB India Pvt. Ltd. (121 ITD 131) (Mum) ; Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. (45 SOT 37) (Ahd Trib.). On specific functional differences, the Ld. counsel relies on the decision in Aztech Software & Technology Services Ltd. v. ACIT (249 ITR (AT) 32) Bang ITAT Special Bench, Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (109 ITD 101) Del ITAT, Firme…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…Del/2013) (iv) M/s e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 324/Bang/2015) (v) M/s. Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 214/Bang/2015) (vi) Valtech India Systems P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 22/Bang/2014) (vii) UCB India (P) Ltd. v ACIT 30 SOT 95 (viii) Easton Fluid Power Limited vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1623/PN/2011) (ix) Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 7307/Mum/2012) (x) Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs DCIT, 130 TTJ 556 (xi) Destination of the World vs. DCIT [ITA No 5534/Del/2010] (xii) Interra Information Technologies India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5568&5680/Del/2011) (xiii) H…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…Del/2013) (iv) M/s e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 324/Bang/2015) (v) M/s. Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 214/Bang/2015) (vi) Valtech India Systems P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 22/Bang/2014) (vii) UCB India (P) Ltd. v ACIT 30 SOT 95 (viii) Easton Fluid Power Limited vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1623/PN/2011) (ix) Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 7307/Mum/2012) (x) Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs DCIT, 130 TTJ 556 (xi) Destination of the World vs. DCIT [ITA No 5534/Del/2010] (xii) Interra Information Technologies India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5568&5680/Del/2011) (xiii) H…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…Del/2013) (iv) M/s e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 324/Bang/2015) (v) M/s. Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 214/Bang/2015) (vi) Valtech India Systems P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 22/Bang/2014) (vii) UCB India (P) Ltd. v ACIT 30 SOT 95 (viii) Easton Fluid Power Limited vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1623/PN/2011) (ix) Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 7307/Mum/2012) (x) Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs DCIT, 130 TTJ 556 (xi) Destination of the World vs. DCIT [ITA No 5534/Del/2010] (xii) Interra Information Technologies India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5568&5680/Del/2011) (xiii) H…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…Del/2013) (iv) M/s e4e Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 324/Bang/2015) (v) M/s. Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 214/Bang/2015) (vi) Valtech India Systems P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 22/Bang/2014) (vii) UCB India (P) Ltd. v ACIT 30 SOT 95 (viii) Easton Fluid Power Limited vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1623/PN/2011) (ix) Cybertech Systems & Software Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 7307/Mum/2012) (x) Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs DCIT, 130 TTJ 556 (xi) Destination of the World vs. DCIT [ITA No 5534/Del/2010] (xii) Interra Information Technologies India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5568&5680/Del/2011) (xiii) H…

Sandoz P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2263/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: S/Shri Anand Mohan &
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “जे” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 2263/मुं/2017 ("न. व.2012-13) ITA NO.2263 /MUM/2017(A.Y.2012-13) आअसं. 2264/मुं/2017 ("न. व.2008-09) आअसं. 6815/मुं/2017 ("न. व.2013-14) ITA NO.6815 /MUM/2017(A.Y.2013-14) Sandoz Private Limited, MIDC, Plot No.8-A/2,8-B, TTC Industrial Area.Kalwa Block, Village Digha, Navi Mumbai 400 708 PAN: AAACS9267J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Joint Commissioner of I…

Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 778/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 920(3)Section 92CSection 92D

…10B(3)(ii) only reasonable accurate adjustment can be made. Undeniably this is not the case of the assessee. 6. In his discussions in the TP order, the TPO has also discussed the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Ltd vs ACIT [2009] 30 SOT 95. [page 159 -160 of appeal set for AY 2010-11]. The same has also been discussed in TP order for AY 2011-12. While upholding that CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along certain dimensions (dimensions mentioned in the order) Hon'ble ITAT has observed that under the CUP method the properties of a product and accompanying circumstance…

Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5533/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 920(3)Section 92CSection 92D

…10B(3)(ii) only reasonable accurate adjustment can be made. Undeniably this is not the case of the assessee. 6. In his discussions in the TP order, the TPO has also discussed the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Ltd vs ACIT [2009] 30 SOT 95. [page 159 -160 of appeal set for AY 2010-11]. The same has also been discussed in TP order for AY 2011-12. While upholding that CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along certain dimensions (dimensions mentioned in the order) Hon'ble ITAT has observed that under the CUP method the properties of a product and accompanying circumstance…

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 256/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 256/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 – 12

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT – DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…nufacturing and trading activity. 8. Ld.AR submitted that, Rule 10A(d) of Income Tax Rules, defines ‘transaction’ as a number of closely linked transactions. He submitted that, by Ld.TPO relied upon decision in case of UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 121 ITD 131 to hold that trading and manufacturing segment of assessee are distinct. Ld.AR submitted that, Ld. TPO failed to appreciating that both segments are intertwined and inter-related warranting a "combined transaction approach" in arriving at arm's length price. Ld.AR submitted that, assessee had applied TNMM at entity level, since Page 13 of 18 IT(…

Fulford (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT.(OSD)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6154/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Fulford (India) Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Platina C-59, Vs. Income Tax (Osd)-2(1), Mumbai G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400098 Pan No. Aaacf1795L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT- DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 250(4)Section 92BSection 92C(2)

…o page, 37,40, 50, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 86 of the Paper Book (P/B) filed before the Tribunal as well as before the lower authorities to explain their above contentions. 5.1 Also the Ld. counsels relied on the decision in UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2009) 121 ITD 131 (Mumbai-Trib); DCIT v. Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. (ITA No. 575/Del/2014) for AY 2005-06 by ITAT Delhi; Amphenon Fulford (India) Limited 12 Inter-connect India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2015) 58 taxmann.com 168 (Pune-Trib); Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT (2006) 157 Taxman 125 (Del); Fulford India Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 6733/Mum/2013) for AY 2002-03…

Hapag Lloyd India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 819/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.819/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Hapag–Lloyd India P. Ltd. 403 & 404, Satellite Gazebo A–Wing, Guru Hargovindji Marg ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 PAN – AABCH7319B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–7(1)(2), Mumbai ITA no.6714/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Hapag–Lloyd India P. Ltd. 403 & 404, Satellite Gazebo A–Wing, Guru Hargovindji Marg ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 PAN – AABCH…

Si Group India Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 1745/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Si Group India Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.D-2/1, Ttc Income Tax, Industrial Area, Ltu, Mumbai Thane-Belapur Road Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7323L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Si Group India Limited Income Tax, Plot No.D-2/1, Ttc Industrial Centre-1, 29Th Floor Area, World Trade Centre Thane-Belapur Road Cuffe Parade, Opp. Juinagar Railway Station Mumbai-400 005 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaach7323L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing 17/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

Section 143(3)

…net margin from a transaction with AE is found and accepted at ALP. M/s. SI Group India Ltd., 18. Before parting with this matter, I consider it my duty to record that the ld. AR relied on certain decisions including UCB India (P.) Ltd. v.. Asstt. CIT [2009] 121 ITD 131 / 30 95 (Mum), Bayer. Material Science (P.) SOT Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 134 ITD 582 /18 taxman.com 60 (Mum.) and Dy. (P.)Ltd. [2011] 133 ITD 255 / 48 253 / 15 CIT v. BP India Services SOT taxmann.com 125 (Mum) in which it has been held that controlled transactions cannot be considered for determining ALP in other transactions. Per contra, the ld…

M/S. Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhsa No. 856/Del/2018 & [A.Y 2011-12] M/S Sony Mobile Communications Vs. The J.C.I.T [India] Pvt. Ltd Special Range – 8 A-31, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate New Delhi Main Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan : Aakcs 7996 N [A.Y 2011-12] The J.C.I.T Vs. M/S Sony Mobile Communications Special Range – 8 [India] Pvt. Ltd New Delhi A-31, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan : Aakcs 7996 N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv Shri Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 271Section 92C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-2’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA No. 856/DEL/2018 & [A.Y 2011-12] M/s Sony Mobile Communications Vs. The J.C.I.T [India] Pvt. Ltd Special Range – 8 A-31, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate New Delhi Main Mathura Road, New Delhi PAN : AAKCS 7996 N [A.Y 2011-12] The J.C.I.T Vs. M/s Sony Mobile Communications Special Range – 8 [India] Pvt. Ltd New Delhi A-31, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi PAN : AAKCS 7996 N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nage…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2106/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhsa No. 856/Del/2018 & [A.Y 2011-12] M/S Sony Mobile Communications Vs. The J.C.I.T [India] Pvt. Ltd Special Range – 8 A-31, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate New Delhi Main Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan : Aakcs 7996 N [A.Y 2011-12] The J.C.I.T Vs. M/S Sony Mobile Communications Special Range – 8 [India] Pvt. Ltd New Delhi A-31, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan : Aakcs 7996 N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv Shri Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 271Section 92C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-2’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA No. 856/DEL/2018 & [A.Y 2011-12] M/s Sony Mobile Communications Vs. The J.C.I.T [India] Pvt. Ltd Special Range – 8 A-31, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate New Delhi Main Mathura Road, New Delhi PAN : AAKCS 7996 N [A.Y 2011-12] The J.C.I.T Vs. M/s Sony Mobile Communications Special Range – 8 [India] Pvt. Ltd New Delhi A-31, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi PAN : AAKCS 7996 N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nage…