How many judgments cite UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT?

70 judgments on BharatTax cite UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT (121 ITD 131), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 44BB, Section 44DA, Section 9(1)(vi), Section 9(1)(vii), Section 115A.

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.

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 1961 Section 44BB Section 44DA Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 115A Section 115A of the Income Tax Act Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 44da section 293 economic adjustment section 44bb section 100 profit split method far analysis section 44b resale price method section 44d bright line test section 36(l)(va)

Judgments citing UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Akshar Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6292/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Asst. Cit-5(1)(2), Mumbai, M/S D. Navinchandra Exports Pvt. Ltd., बिधम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, 210 Prasad Chambers, Opera House, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aadcp6855C (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan, D.R

Section 271G

…ctions futile. The TPO in order to drive home his aforesaid view that entity level benchmarking does not lead to correct results and the same will not stand the test of Rule 10B(1)(e) relied on the orders of the Tribunal in the case of (i). UCB India Vs. ACIT 121 ITD 131 (Mum); (ii). Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. (2007) 107 ITD 141 (Bang) (SB) and OECD TP guidelines. Thus, the TPO in the backdrop of his aforesaid observations called upon the assessee to furnish the requisite details in terms of Sec. 92D(3). However, the assessee once again expressed its inability to furnish the requisite information f…

DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S. J.J. Exporters Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 201/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle-12 , -Vs.- M/S. J.J.Exporters Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6722 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri R.N.Bajoria, Shri A.Gupta & Shri S.Jhajharia, Ar Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 25.11.2011 Of C.I.T.(A)-Xii, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2007-08. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Revenue Reads As Follows :- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition U/S. 36(1)(Iii) Made On The Basis Of Auditor'S Certificate In The Form 3Cd. “

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri R.N.Bajoria, Shri A.Gupta &

Section 10BSection 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…lly Rule 10B( e) (i) to (iii) that it is only the international transaction that has to be compared with uncontrolled transaction and not the transaction undertaken by the entity as a whole. Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Ltd. V. ACIT (2009) 121 ITD 131 had held that sec, 92C read with Rule 10B(l) (e) deals with the Transactions Net Margin Method and it refers to only net profit margin realized by an enterprise from an international transaction or a 11 12 M/s. J.J.Exporters Ltd. A.Yr.2007-08 class of such transactions but not operating margins of enterprises as whole. This view was re-iterated…

Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4634/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., Vs Dcit, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, Circle-3(1), 124, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 (Pan: Aaacc5029L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Ms Pushpa Sharma, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Order

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Ms Pushpa Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ermination of ALP as well as proper documentation was on the assessee which the assessee had failed to do. Reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents:- Aztec Software And Technology vs ACIT 294 ITR 32 (AT) UCB India (P) Limited Vs. ACIT (2009) 121 ITD 131, ACIT Vs. Golawala Diamonds 44 SOT 645 CA Computer Associates India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT- order dated 28.1.2010 of ITAT, Mumbai. 4.1 It was further submitted that the transactions accepted in the hands of the AE would not necessarily mean that ALP has been accepted in the case of the assessee. It was submitted that benchmarking has to be done…

Control Risks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 979/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ce demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect.” (emphasis provided) 8.4. We further find our conclusion supported by a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of UCB India Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, Circle 7(3), Mumbai, 121 ITD 131, wherein it is held as under: “In all fairness, the assessee should not be pinned down to his submissions in the first round of Transfer Pricing proceedings. It should be appreciated that Transfer Pricing regulations are relatively new provisions and the case does require special consideration. The assessee is free to support his case in any man…

At & S India Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2011-12

Section 143(3)

…be preferred over the other profit based methods. Reliance is placed in this regard on the following decisions: - Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT [2009] 107 ITO 141/162 Taxman 179 (Bang.)(SB) - UCB India (P) Ltd. v. Asstt CIT [2009130 SOT 95 (Mum.) - Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2070135 SOT 406(Mum.) - Intervet India (P) Ltd. v. Asstt CIT [2070139 SOT 93 (Mum.) - Asstt. CIT v. Dufon Laboratories [2070139 SOT 59 (Mum.) ITA No.179/Kol/2016 A.Y 2011-12 AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Cir-11(1), Kol Page 19 2.7.76. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Hon 'ble Mu…

Landis + Gyr Limited, South 24 Parganas vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 37/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR

Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 43B

…ed entity level bench marking on TNMM method by combining assessee's all international transactions with associated enterprise without justification. 7.3 Our view is supported by ITAT judgments - Mumbai Bench in the cases of UCB India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 30 SOT 95 (Mum.); ACIT v. Star India Ltd. (ITA NO.s 3585 & 3846 (M) of 2006); and Kolkata Bench in the case of Development Consultants (P) Ltd. (2008) 23 SOT 455 (Kol.). All these cases clearly lay down that ALP would be determined based on the nature of service provided by assessee for each class of transaction based on various factors and analysis. In the…

M/S Landis+Gyr Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1623/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Mitra, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR

Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 43B

Omniglobe Information Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5929/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5929/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Omniglobe Information Vs Income Tax Officer, Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-13(4), E-11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi New Delhi-110027 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco6606M Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Neeraj Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…es. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Pasupuleti Venkaterwarlu Vs The Motor General Traders AIR 1975 SC 1409 " D.C.M. Benetton India Ltd. Vs CIT, New Delhi (2008) 173 Taxman 283 (Del) " U.C.B. India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Circle-7(3), Mumbai, 121 ITD 131 (Mum) " NIT Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITA 1871/Del/2009, ITAT, New Delhi) 10. In his rival submissions the ld. DR objected for admission of the additional ground and the additional evidences and submitted that those were not raised/furnished either before the TPO or before the DRP, therefore, should not be admitted. 11. We have considered the submissions of…

M/S. Dhv Global Engineering Center Bv, Noida vs. DDIT, Noida

In the result, assessee’s appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2300/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Kuldip Singh :Asstt. Yr: 2009-10 & Ita Nos. 1238 & 1239/Del/2015 Asstt. Yrs: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dhv Global Engineering Vs. Dcit International Taxation, Center Bv Noida. 14 Block-1, Sdf, Noida, Special Economic Zone, Noida. Pan: Aaccd 0804 G ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain Adv. Ms. Deepika Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Amrendra Kumar Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2016. Date Of Order : 24/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…ein it has been, inter alia, held that justice should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part of one of the parties to lead evidence. Further, in the case of UCB India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Circle 7(3), Mumbai 121 ITD 131, Tribunal took note of the fact that 10 ITA 2300/Del/2014- 1238 & 1239/Del/2015 the transfer pricing regulations are relatively new provisions and, therefore, if certain documents were not filed in the first round or certain method was not adopted originally, then the assessee should not be shut out in the second round of proceedings from produ…

Flextronics Software Systems Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5550/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V.Mehrotra & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: O R D E R

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 263Section 92C

…he plea for admission of additional evidence before the Tribunal was accepted by the Hon’ble High Court. Your Honour’s attention is also invited to the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 7(3), Mumbai, 121 ITD 131, wherein it is held as under: Attention is further invited to the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of NIT Ltd. vs. ACIT: (ITA No. 1871/Del/2009) wherein the fresh search submitted by the assessee even before the Tribunal was accepted. 18 It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid additional evidences sought to be placed on reco…