UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

35 SOT 406Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#7437 most cited
15

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

Sections most often in play

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43B

Judgments citing UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

OCEAN DIVING CENTRE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 6742/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Itat On The Following 4 Issues :

Section 143(3)

…its AE. b) It is a settled law that the Arm’s Length Price is LIBOR+margin for opportunity cost of the capital and risk remuneration as held in the case of Dabur India 126 taxmann.com 259 and CIT Vs. Cotton Naturals 55 taxman.com 523 and Gharda Chemicals 35 SOT 406 (Mum) dt.30.11.2009. c) The Bench agrees with the order of DRP where it was mentioned that the whole purpose of Chapter X dealing with transfer pricing regulations is to compute arm’s length 6 Ocean Diving Centre Limited situation whether appellant wants to treat the loan as investment or not, what really matters is whether loan transaction has…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

ITA 264/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80ISection 92C

…eferred to TNMM more particularly when data in respect of tested party/transaction is available namely i) Hughes Systique (I) (P) Ltd.- 36 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi), ii) Aztec Software & Tech. Services Ltd.- 107 ITD 141(Bang)(SB), and iii) Gharda Chemicals Ltd.- 35 SOT 406 (Mum). The Ld. A.R. also submitted that even the OECD guideline, UNTP manual & ICAI guidance note also refer to CPM applicable in case of transfer of semi-finished goods/job work and therefore the arguments of the Ld. D.R. that CPM is not applicable is not correct. Finally the Ld. A.R. submitted that since the assessee has submitted the cost recor…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

ITA 263/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80ISection 92C

…eferred to TNMM more particularly when data in respect of tested party/transaction is available namely i) Hughes Systique (I) (P) Ltd.- 36 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi), ii) Aztec Software & Tech. Services Ltd.- 107 ITD 141(Bang)(SB), and iii) Gharda Chemicals Ltd.- 35 SOT 406 (Mum). The Ld. A.R. also submitted that even the OECD guideline, UNTP manual & ICAI guidance note also refer to CPM applicable in case of transfer of semi-finished goods/job work and therefore the arguments of the Ld. D.R. that CPM is not applicable is not correct. Finally the Ld. A.R. submitted that since the assessee has submitted the cost recor…

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

…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 priority of applications of methods for the determination of A…

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

…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 priority of applications of methods for the determination of A…

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata……..........….…..........…........Appellant Vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd............................………………..................................……………..........Respondent Kulia Kanchrapara Road Kalyani, Nadia Pin – 741 251 [Pan : Aaace 4000 H] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit D/R & Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Fca & S.C. Giri C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 250

…td. i) the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in [2010] 35 SOT 406 [2010] 35 SOT 406 which inter alia reads as under: “15. The Internal CUP method envisages comparing the uncontrolled transactions “15. The Internal CUP method envisages comparing the uncontrolled transactions “15. The Internal CUP method envisages comparing the uncontrolled transactions of the assessee itself with other unrelated parties so as to…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…of CUP method requires strict comparability and comparability adjustment is required to be made for the differences if any: - UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2009) 30 SOT 95(Mum) - ACIT vs. MSS India Pvt.Ltd.:123 TTJ 653 (Pune) - Gharda Chemicals vs DCIT (2009) 35 SOT 406 (Mum) - Intervet India Pvt .Ltd.ACIT :130 TTJ 301(Mum) - ACIT vs Dufon Laboratories: (2010) 39 SOT 59 (Mum) Further, the cardinal principle of the transfer pricing regulations is to compare like with like and to eliminate differences, if any, by suitable adjustment. Rule 10B(3) also provides for appropriate comparability adjustments to made in th…

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…of CUP method requires strict comparability and comparability adjustment is required to be made for the differences if any: - UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2009) 30 SOT 95(Mum) - ACIT vs. MSS India Pvt.Ltd.:123 TTJ 653 (Pune) - Gharda Chemicals vs DCIT (2009) 35 SOT 406 (Mum) - Intervet India Pvt .Ltd.ACIT :130 TTJ 301(Mum) - ACIT vs Dufon Laboratories: (2010) 39 SOT 59 (Mum) Further, the cardinal principle of the transfer pricing regulations is to compare like with like and to eliminate differences, if any, by suitable adjustment. Rule 10B(3) also provides for appropriate comparability adjustments to made in th…

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 69/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha & Ms. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 92C

…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. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT reported in [2011] 44 SOT 391/9 taxmann.com 13 wherein the Hon…

MMC HEALTHCARE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE WARD 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as indicated herein above

ITA 2978/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanand Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2978/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Vs The Dcit, M/S. Mmc Healthcare Limited, Corporate Ward 4(1), C/O. M/S. Ramesh & Chennai. Ramachandran, Chartered Accountants, New No.39, Old No.29/3, Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24. Pan: Aaccm5814D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shriy. Sridhar,Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Dr.M. Srinivasarao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओ रसे/Respondent By : 09.08.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Dr.M. SrinivasaRao, CITFor Respondent: 09.08.2018
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40A

…third party. 3ITA No.2978/Chny/2017  In the present case, Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price(CUP) is preferred since it is more reliable and accurate as compared to external data.  The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Gharda Chemicals Ltd Vs DC!T [20101 35 SOT 406 has held that “ordinarily the Internal CUP method should be preferred over External CUP method as it neutralizes several distinguishing factors, such as the local factors and the economies available or unavailable to the assessee in particular, having bearing over the comparison of price charged from unrelated parties and AE” the internal CUP shou…

G.S.CALTEX INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 228/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.228/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/S. G.S Caltex India P. Ltd. बिाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of 215, Altrium, “C”Wing, Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(2), Unit No. 816/817, 8 T H Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, V. Chakala, Andheri Kurla M K Road, Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadcg6605R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar, CIT-Dr &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “K” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.228/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/s. G.S Caltex India P. Ltd. बिाम/ Deputy Commissioner of 215, Altrium, “C”Wing, Income-tax, Circle 2(1)(2), Unit No. 816/817, 8 t h floor, Aayakar Bhawan, v. Chakala, Andheri Kurla M K Road, Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AADCG6605R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Ajay R. Singh R…

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 77/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37Section 92C

…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. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT reported in [2011] 44 SOT 391/9 taxmann.com 13 wherein the Hon…

AT & S INDIA PVT. LTD.,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, 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)

…e 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 Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India…

N L C NALCO INDIA LTD PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1256/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Mallikarjuna &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…transaction and uncontrolled transaction. Hence, the application of the CUP Method made by the TPO in the above case was inappropriate. 37. The decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Gharda Chemicals Ltd vs. DCIT in 2009 TIOL 790 (ITAT-Mum.) and [2010] 35 SOT 406 (MUM.) which inter alia reads as under: "15. Now we come to CUP method by which the price charged or paid for property transferred in comparable uncontrolled transaction is identified. Such price is adjusted to account for differences which could materially affect the price in the open market ……. . 16 The essence of determining ALP under CUP metho…

NLC NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 529/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Mallikarjuna &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…transaction and uncontrolled transaction. Hence, the application of the CUP Method made by the TPO in the above case was inappropriate. 37. The decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Gharda Chemicals Ltd vs. DCIT in 2009 TIOL 790 (ITAT-Mum.) and [2010] 35 SOT 406 (MUM.) which inter alia reads as under: "15. Now we come to CUP method by which the price charged or paid for property transferred in comparable uncontrolled transaction is identified. Such price is adjusted to account for differences which could materially affect the price in the open market ……. . 16 The essence of determining ALP under CUP metho…

UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (35 SOT 406) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax