“technical knowhow fees”

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Procter & Gamble Heath Ltd., The Dy. Cit-8(2)(1), P& G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Chakala Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Sir M.K. Mumbai-400099. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 2616 F Appellant Respondent

enterprise and an addition of Rs.97,01,477/ Associated enterprise and an addition of Rs.97,01,477/- in in relation to payment of technical knowhow fees to Merck KGaA. The Ld. CIT(A) to payment of technical knowhow fees to Merck KGaA. The Ld. CIT(A) to payment of technical ... item of levy of the penalty is transfer pricing of the penalty is transfer pricing adjustment in respect of adjustment in respect of ‘technical knowhow fees ow fees’. The addition made in this respect has been deleted by the Tribunal in ITA No. made in this respect has been deleted

UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

preliminary\nissue that is to be decided in the instant case is whether the Id. TPO was\njustified in determining the ALP of technical knowhow fees at Rs. Nil without\nfollowing the benchmarking analysis provided in any one of the prescribed\nmethods as provided in the statute read with relevant ... however, ignored the\nbenchmarking analysis carried out by the assessee and determined the arm's\nlength principle for payment of technical knowhow fees at Rs. Nil by not\nfollowing any of the methods prescribed u/s.92C(1) of the Act read with Rule\n10B of the Rules. Rule 10B of Income

ACIT-11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

preliminary\nissue that is to be decided in the instant case is whether the Id. TPO was\njustified in determining the ALP of technical knowhow fees at Rs. Nil without\nfollowing the benchmarking analysis provided in any one of the prescribed\nmethods as provided in the statute read with relevant ... however, ignored the\nbenchmarking analysis carried out by the assessee and determined the arm's\nlength principle for payment of technical knowhow fees at Rs. Nil by not\nfollowing any of the methods prescribed u/s.92C(1) of the Act read with Rule\n10B of the Rules. Rule 10B of Income

UPS EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UPS JETAIR EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT 3(1) (1) ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ITO/NFAC-DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Ups Express Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Dcit-3(1)(1) Express Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 6-A, Shyam Off Jvlr, Majas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Village, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400060 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu4322N Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023

recovery expenses of Rs 74,78,465/-. The assessee has paid ₹ 15,91,88,056/- to United Parcel Services America on account of technical knowhow fees. The assessee used transactional net margin method as most the appropriate method adopting profit level indicator of operating profit to operating income, taking itself ... assessee submitted the technology license agreement wherein assessee was granted exclusive right to use technical information in India. The assessee also submitted that technical knowhow fees A.Y.2018-19 UPS Express Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as UPS Jetair Express Pvt. Ltd.) is paid at the rate of 2% of gross export revenue

THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

such parts/components and characteristics of materials to be use in the manufacture of such parts/components. For supplying the drawings, the assessee has collected technical knowhow fee from the above said licensee, on which the deduction u/s 80-O has been claimed. 10.3 The case of tax authorities is that ... design, invention, patent and trade mark outside India. However, we notice that the Agreement entered between both the parties clearly provides that the technical knowhow fee is received for supplying the drawings. The relevant clause 5 reads as under:- “5. It is further agreed that should the LICENSEE request BAJAJ

SULZER PUMPS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE-15 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

Hence they are dismissed as Not Pressed. The remaining grounds give rise to the following issues:- (a) Disallowance of expenses of Royalty, technical knowhow fees and annual charges of Microsoft licencing fee by determining the ALP at NIL. (b) Disallowance of ASP Management fees (c) Addition on account of difference ... income as per Form 26AS. 4. We heard the parties and perused the record. The first issue relates to the disallowance of Royalty, technical knowhow fees and annual charges of Microsoft licencing fee. We have considered an identical issue in the Sulzes Pumps I Pvt. ltd.;AY 15-16 assessee

UPS EXPRESS P LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UPS JETAIR EXPRESS P. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

itself, would not satisfy the statutory requirement of testing the arm's length nature of the international transaction of the payment of technical knowhow fees, and that to determine whether the assessee would have made such a payment if it was dealing with an unrelated party in similar conditions ... been made. Therefore, following the judicial precedence of the earlier years the determination of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) of the so called technical knowhow fees at nil by the TPO and the consequent recommendation of the entire actual payment made as a transfer pricing adjustment to the returned income

DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

proposed adjustment of Rs.98,22,939/- and Rs.1,22,32,000/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment towards accrual of technical knowhow fees from AE i.e. M/s. P.T. Five Star, Indonesia – PTFSI for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2013-14 respectively on the ground that technical fee received/receivable from AE were ... view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that since there is uncertainty involved in collection of the technical knowhow fees from the PTFSI due to its bad financial condition, the assessee has rightly not recognized the revenue. This view of ours is supported

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

proposed adjustment of Rs.98,22,939/- and Rs.1,22,32,000/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment towards accrual of technical knowhow fees from AE i.e. M/s. P.T. Five Star, Indonesia – PTFSI for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2013-14 respectively on the ground that technical fee received/receivable from AE were ... view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that since there is uncertainty involved in collection of the technical knowhow fees from the PTFSI due to its bad financial condition, the assessee has rightly not recognized the revenue. This view of ours is supported

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

proposed adjustment of Rs.98,22,939/- and Rs.1,22,32,000/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment towards accrual of technical knowhow fees from AE i.e. M/s. P.T. Five Star, Indonesia – PTFSI for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2013-14 respectively on the ground that technical fee received/receivable from AE were ... view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that since there is uncertainty involved in collection of the technical knowhow fees from the PTFSI due to its bad financial condition, the assessee has rightly not recognized the revenue. This view of ours is supported