Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax - ... vs Philip Morris Services India Sa on 18 December, 2018

Roxtec India Private Limited, New Delhi vs Acit, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi on 22 February, 2021

In Philip Morris Services India SA (supra) it was observed that since the filters that have been used in T.P. study were not found to be appropriate in entirety as there are differences in the threshold limits of several filters and method of application of filters, it has resulted to an inappropriate set of comparables and approved the finding of theTribunal that these three companies are not at all good comparable with the market support service entities like the assessee.Findings of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court in Philip Morris Services India SA (supra) in respect of the comparability of the Apitco Ltd., Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. and Killick Agencies are very much relevant on this aspect in comparison with the assessee also who is rendering only the marketing support services, on the ground of dissimilarity of functions. We, therefore, direct the learned Assessing Officer/Ld. TPO to delete this the entities from the list of comparables.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Technicolor India Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 15 February, 2023

18. Going through the comparables contested by the ld.AR the functions are not similar with the assessee. The ld.AR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Philip Morris Services India SA reported in [2019] 102 taxmann.com376 Delhi (cited supra) support the case of the assessee. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Large ... on 1 February, 2024

The ld. DR has also supported the order of the DRP by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Philip Morris Services India SA [2019] 102 taxmann.com 376 (Del). We find that the ld. DRP has not decided on the basis of objections raised by the assessee. We note that while computing PLI for the AY 2014-15 and 2017-18, this company has been considered as a comparable in assessee's own case. Since the revenue authorities have accepted this company as a comparable in subsequent years, therefore to maintain parity, we reject the argument of the ld. DR that Govt. company cannot be considered as a comparable, if it passes FAR analysis. We further observe that the TPO has observed this company is a persistent loss making company. However, as per the computation submitted by the assessee at page No.397 of PB, it has been shown as a profit making company in the FY 2010-11 in unadjusted margin analysis, whereas at page 398 of PB in the adjusted margin of analysis of trading activity it is shown as persistent loss for FYs 2010-11 to 2012-13. We note from the order of the ld. DRP that this aspect has not been examined. From the financial statements of TCIL it is observed that it is engaged in various types of activities. Hence we accept the alternative submission of the ld. DR that the PLI/profitability should be considered only from the Trading activity of the comparable ITA No.2088/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 40 company as business activity carried out by the assessee company and the ld. AR had also calculated PLI in which the company has profit in one year as observed above. FAR analysis of comparable has to be considered for each year separately irrespective of other years. Accordingly we remit this issue to the ld. TPO/AO for de novo consideration of the FAR analysis as indicated above and considering the decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Yazaki India P. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.621(PUN) of 2014 in which it has been observed that if the comparable company is continuously not making loss for any of the three years, it is not persistent loss making company. If the TPO/AO finds that the comparable company is persistent loss making company in trading segment for all the three years, then it should not be considered as a comparable company.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs Canon India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi on 10 November, 2025

18. The revenue's stand also finds support in the earlier High Court decisions in CIT v. Dr. R.N. Jhanji (185 ITR 586) and CIT v. M.A. Morris (210 ITR 284). In Dr. R.N. Jhanji, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that double taxation relief under section 91 cannot exceed the Indian tax payable on the doubly taxed income. Similarly, in M.A. Morris, the Kerala High Court held that credit for taxes paid abroad is not available when no tax is payable in India on the corresponding income. Both these judgments reinforce the principle that FTC operates as a credit against Indian tax liability and not as an independent refund mechanism.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Canon India Pvt. Ltd,Gurugram vs Neac, Delhi on 10 November, 2025

18. The revenue's stand also finds support in the earlier High Court decisions in CIT v. Dr. R.N. Jhanji (185 ITR 586) and CIT v. M.A. Morris (210 ITR 284). In Dr. R.N. Jhanji, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that double taxation relief under section 91 cannot exceed the Indian tax payable on the doubly taxed income. Similarly, in M.A. Morris, the Kerala High Court held that credit for taxes paid abroad is not available when no tax is payable in India on the corresponding income. Both these judgments reinforce the principle that FTC operates as a credit against Indian tax liability and not as an independent refund mechanism.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New ... on 6 March, 2026

29. Heard the contentions of both parties at length and perused the material available on record. The main contention of the revenue is that company is functionally similar however, from the perusal of order of ld. DRP, it is observed that said company is mainly providing three services: (i) Registrar and Transfer Agent Activity; (ii) Records Management Activity; and (iii) Payroll and Trust Fund Activity payroll and all these services as provided by it are altogether different from the services provided by the assessee to its AE. It is further observed that in the case of CIT vs Philip Morris Services India S.A vs DCIT [2018] 95 taxmann.com 156 [Del.Trib.], the Co-ordinate Bench has held that the company is not comparable which order sought confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court as reported in 10 taxmann.com 376.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Honda R & D (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs Dcit,Circle-11(1), New Delhi on 15 March, 2021

The TPO has accepted the sale comparable in the final list of comparables thereby stating that it is in business / market support services. The ld. AR submitted that this particular comparable company is functioning dissimilar as it is engaged in providing high-end technical services. Besides this, the ld. AR pointed out that this company is a Govt. company and cannot be taken into account as comparable. The ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Phillip Morris Services Ltd. (ITA.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1