← All Phrases

“cost contribution arrangement”

Transfer PricingSection 92BSection 92B16 judgments

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly with consequence to\nfollow as per the determination of grounds as above

ITA 2052/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)

relevant in the context\nof determining the arm's length price of the costs incurred by the\nassessee in cost contribution arrangement. We have also noted that the\nstand of the revenue authorities in this case is that no services were\nrendered by the AE at all, and that since

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly with consequence to\nfollow as per the determination of grounds as above

ITA 1688/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)

relevant in the context\nof determining the arm's length price of the costs incurred by the\nassessee in cost contribution arrangement. We have also noted that the\nstand of the revenue authorities in this case is that no services were\nrendered by the AE at all, and that since

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly with consequence to\nfollow as per the determination of grounds as above

ITA 9080/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

relevant in the context\nof determining the arm's length price of the costs incurred by the\nassessee in cost contribution arrangement. We have also noted that the\nstand of the revenue authorities in this case is that no services were\nrendered by the AE at all, and that since

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1076/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

manufacturing goods 28.14 5. Import of capital equipments 1.82 6 Repair and maintenance services(income) 0.14 7. Management support system 10.26 8. Cost contribution arrangement 4.82 9. Royalty 6.80 10. E-content/e-catalogue 11.14 11. Business support services 5.25 12. Research and development support services 45.55 13. Reimbursement of expenses ... supported by audited financials; (ii) Segmentation is not supported by Accounting Standard 17: (iii) Payment of royalty, import of capital equipment, payment under cost contribution arrangement and reimbursement of expenses are also allocated to other manufacturing segments viz. Manufacturing Local and Manufacturing Hyderabad and hence the said international transactions would

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3337/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234CSection 234FSection 37(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

entity, i.e SEI-F, for\nrendition of these services. The cost allocation agreement and detailed documentation\nsupport for the services availed under the cost contribution arrangement were placed\nbefore us at pages 106 to 258, and, upon perusal of the same, we have no doubts about\nthe actual rendition

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 346/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

relevant in the context of determining the arm’s length price of the costs incurred by the assessee in cost contribution arrangement. 16. In light of the above, we conclude that there exists a direct nexus between the revenue earned by the assessee and the payment of royalty made

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

relevant in the context of determining the arm’s length price of the costs incurred by the assessee in cost contribution arrangement. 16. In light of the above, we conclude that there exists a direct nexus between the revenue earned by the assessee and the payment of royalty made

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

find that the basic reason of the Transfer\nPricing Officer's determination of ALP of the services\nreceived under cost contribution arrangement as\n'NIL' is his perception that the assessee did not need\nthese services at all, as the assessee had sufficient\nexperts of his own who were competent

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

Trib) 422: \"8. We find that the basic reason of the Transfer Pricing Officer's determination of ALP of the services received under cost contribution arrangement as 'NIL' is his perception that the assessee did not need these services at all, as the assessee had sufficient experts ... relevant in the context of determining the arm's length price of the costs incurred by the assessee in cost contribution arrangement. We have also noted that the stand of the revenue authorities in this case is that no services were rendered by the AE at all, and that since

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

find that the basic reason of the Transfer\nPricing Officer's determination of ALP of the services\nreceived under cost contribution arrangement as\n'NIL' is his perception that the assessee did not need\nthese services at all, as the assessee had sufficient\nexperts of his own who were competent

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1121/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80Section 80I

Trib) 422: "8. We find that the basic reason of the Transfer Pricing Officer's determination of ALP of the services received under cost contribution arrangement as 'NIL' is his perception that the assessee did not need these services at all, as the assessee had sufficient experts ... relevant in the context of determining the arm's length price of the costs incurred by the assessee in cost contribution arrangement. We have also noted that the stand of the revenue authorities in this case is that no services were rendered by the AE at all, and that since

DCIT, CIR- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. HAMON COOLING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 2398/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

relevant in the context of determining the arm's length price of the costs incurred by the assessee in cost contribution arrangement. We have also noted that the stand of the revenue authorities in this case is that no services were rendered by the AE at all, and that since

ROYAL CANIN INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE/ASST CIT-3(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1298/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 1298/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Royal Canin India Private Limited, 1401&1402 F Wing, 14Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Cts Nos. 185/A, Graham Firth Compund Western Highway, Goregaon(E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan: Aadcr-4417-J ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -3(1)(1) Room No.607, 6Th Floor,, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Khirendra M. Gupta With Shri Akhil Goel. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta with Shri Akhil GoelFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 271G

under: “ 8. We find that the basic reason of the Transfer Pricing Officer’s determination of ALP of the services received under cost contribution arrangement as ‘NIL’ is his perception that the assessee did not need these services at all, as the assessee had sufficient experts ... relevant in the context of determining the arm’s length price of the costs incurred by the assessee in cost contribution arrangement. We have also noted that the stand of the revenue authorities in this case is that no services were rendered by the AE at all, and that since

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

follows:- “8. We find that the basic reason of the Transfer Pricing Officer’s determination of ALP of the services received under cost contribution arrangement as ‘NIL’ is his perception that the assessee did not need these services at all, as the assessee had sufficient experts ... what is the arm’s length price of these services received under cost contribution agreement. It hardly needs to be emphasized that even cost contribution arrangement should be consistent with arm’s length principle, which, in plain words, requires that assessee’s share of overall contribution to the costs

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Neac, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana-121001. Pan-Aaacg3511H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Surendra Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

relevant in the context of determining the arm’s length price of the costs incurred by the assessee in cost contribution arrangement. 16. In light of the above, we conclude that there exists a direct nexus between the revenue earned by the assessee and the payment of royalty made

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA - 475 / 2012HC Delhi23 May 2014
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

Trib) 422: “8. We find that the basic reason of the Transfer Pricing Officer's determination of ALP of the services received under cost contribution arrangement as 'NIL' is his perception that the assessee did not need these services at all, as the assessee had sufficient experts ... relevant in the context of determining the arm's length price of the costs incurred by the assessee in cost contribution arrangement. We have also noted that the stand of the revenue authorities in this case is that no services were rendered by the AE at all, and that since