tested party — 615 case laws

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

have any transaction with any unrelated enterprises. In the circumstances the unit at Madhya Pradesh cannot be considered as the tested party for the purposes of application of CUP. On the contrary, it is noted that the non-eligible unit i.e. cement unit was sourcing power both from ... eligible unit at average landed cost at which the non eligible units procured electricity from the SEB by taking non eligible units as the tested party in the TP Study Report and accordingly ALP of the power captively consumed has been benchmarked at ALC of I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019

ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2951/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

For Appellant: Shri Rishav Patawari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, CIT DR

Section 115VSection 143Section 144CSection 28Section 43Section 92Section 92CSection 92F

providing end-to-end logistics services to a some group of entities. The assessee benchmarked this transaction by taking the assessee itself as a „tested party‟ adopting the most appropriate method of „transactional net margin method‟ and taking the „profit level indicator‟ of operating profit/operating cost of the assessee

Varian Medical Systems International(India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 510/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

purpose of benchmarking for which Mr. Jain drew our attention to page number 178 of the paper book where the margins of the tested party has been computed at 35.71%. 10. After explaining the above factual position Mr. Jain submitted that during the transfer pricing assessment proceedings

Dsi-Bridgecon India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(2), Delhi

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

ITA 798/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

losses without appreciating that persistent losses is not a relevant criteria for selection or rejection of companies which are otherwise functionally comparable to the tested party. 2.3 That the CIT(A)/TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the services have been provided by the associated

Nipro Corporation, Japan, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1867/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Nipro Corporation, Japan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Nipro India Corporation Pvt. Income Tax , Ltd. International Taxation, Plot No.3-1, Circle 3(3)(1) Room No.1630, 16 Th Floor, Air Midc, Kesurdi, Khandala, Tal, Khandala, Satara, India Building, Mumbai-412802 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecn4534F

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92(3)Section 92C

assessee receives such interested the rate of 10.50% of the loan amount. For benchmarking, assessee used Indian associated enterprise as tested party, compared reserve bank of India prescribed ‘all in cost ceiling rate, and the state bank of India private lending rate. Further, the above interest payment was held ... bank is 1% and therefore the interest charged by the foreign entity at 10.50% cannot be disturbed. On the issue whether the tested party should be taken as an Indian entity or a foreign associated Enterprises, the learned dispute resolution panel held that the tested party should be the least

Luxottica India Eyewear Private Ltd., Haryana vs. Circle 13(1), Delhi

ITA 793/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 793/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Vs. Dcit Ltd. Circle 13(1), 7Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan : Aabcl3871C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao &For Respondent: Sh. Manvendra Goyal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92C

said argument’. Then, it has been held in para 165 that ; 'An external comparable should perform similar AMP functions.... Comparable analysts of the tested party and the comparable would include reference to AMP expenses’. The Id. AR has not raised any objection, and rightly so, to the carrying ... judgment in the case of Sony Ericsson (supra), in which it has been held in para 165 that : "Comparable analysis of the tested party and the comparable would include reference to AMP expenses. In case of a mismatch, adjustment could be made when the result would be reliable and accurate

Dy.CIT -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1883/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92F

assessee submitted that comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) was selected as most appropriate method (MAM) with AE being the tested party. The assessee explained that its AE had availed a loan facility from ICICI Bank UK @ 3 months LIBOR + 120 bps. This transaction could be used as internal CUP to benchmark

Kec International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1852/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92F

assessee submitted that comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) was selected as most appropriate method (MAM) with AE being the tested party. The assessee explained that its AE had availed a loan facility from ICICI Bank UK @ 3 months LIBOR + 120 bps. This transaction could be used as internal CUP to benchmark

DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40