Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs Acit - 2(2)(1), Mumbai on 12 June, 2019

Hapag Lloyd India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit 7(1)(2), Mumbai on 27 September, 2019

19. A careful reading of the observations of the Tribunal reproduced above would make it clear that the Tribunal had clearly and categorically observed that the price received by GESA under the sub- agency agreement cannot be applied as internal CUP to determine the arm's length price of business support services provided to the AE. The same view was expressed by the Tribunal while deciding identical issue in the first round of litigation in the impugned assessment year vide order passed in ITA no.1134/Mum./2015, dated 27th February 2015. Admittedly, the Revenue has not contested the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal. Thus, the fact of the matter is, non-applicability of the price paid under sub-agency agreement to GESA as internal CUP has attained finality by virtue of the decisions of the Tribunal as referred to above. That being the case, the same cannot be a subject matter of review or reconsideration by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the fresh proceedings in pursuance to the directions of the Tribunal. Thus, in our view, by again applying the price paid to GESA under the sub-agency agreement as internal CUP, the Transfer Pricing Officer has clearly violated the directions of the Tribunal, hence, has exceeded his jurisdiction. In fact, in the fresh order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act, though, the Transfer Pricing Officer acknowledges the fact that 28 Hapag-Lloyd India P. Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uniliver India Exports Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Rg 1(3)(2), Mumbai on 31 July, 2019

In case of Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, in ITA no.5648/Del./2012, etc., dated 31 st December 2014, the Tribunal has held that as long as business model of sales to AE and sales to non-AEs are different, the transactions under these business models cannot be comparable transactions for the purpose of Transfer Pricing. While in the transactions with the AEs 20 Unilever India Exports Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asst Cit 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs Zydus Nycomed Healthcare P. Ltd, Navi ... on 28 August, 2019

2.4.16 Coming to the legal contentions, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 76291M/2007 dated 30th July, 2008 which came to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ITXA No. 4508 of 2010 (2012) 79 DTR 356, (Born). Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai 12 I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 4670/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Bench in the above case, it has been held that the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the apellant's case in as much as, firstly, the Transfer Pricing Officer had not made any statement in respect of export of goods by the appellant company to its J.V. partner. Secondly, Ld. AO had not been able to adduce any evidence that the appellant had earned higher profits due to any arrangement between the appellant and its Joint Venture partner. Thirdly, the so-called extraordinary profit could not lead to the conclusion that there was an arrangement between the parties and lastly, Ld. AO had accepted that the profit made by the appellant company in A.Y. 2002-03 was reasonable and the increase in profit in subsequent years was due to reduction in cost in raw materials, decrease in average manufacturing cost, economy of scale etc. It was further stated that all these aspects were taken into account at length in the appellate orders for A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2005-06.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai vs Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai on 2 January, 2026

Similar view has been taken by Bombay High Court in P a g e | 17 ITA No. 4046, 4047/Mum/2025 CO No. 213, 214/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17 Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai case of Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 459 ITR 16 (Bom) wherein it was held that there is no ground for reopening of the assessment on mere change of opinion where the issue at hand was already dealt with during the original assessment even if the assessment order does not specifically dealt with that issue. assessment order passed u/s.143(3) rws 153C of the Act. Hence, the reopening of the assessment was found to be unsustainable in law and the same was held to be invalid.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal,Mumbai vs Dcit, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai on 2 January, 2026

Similar view has been taken by Bombay High Court in P a g e | 17 ITA No. 4046, 4047/Mum/2025 CO No. 213, 214/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17 Sunil Bhagwatlal Dalal, Mumbai case of Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 459 ITR 16 (Bom) wherein it was held that there is no ground for reopening of the assessment on mere change of opinion where the issue at hand was already dealt with during the original assessment even if the assessment order does not specifically dealt with that issue. assessment order passed u/s.143(3) rws 153C of the Act. Hence, the reopening of the assessment was found to be unsustainable in law and the same was held to be invalid.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cable And Wireless (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit (It) Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai on 16 December, 2019

One very important aspect which can be deduced from the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble High Court is that, the Court have held that when the matter in the appeal before the Tribunal has been set-aside or remanded back to the file of AO, the AO has to resort to the same procedure of section 144C and pass draft assessment order and if such a draft assessment order is passed then the appeal will lie before the Tribunal. This inter alia means that the entire assessment procedure is thrown open and remedy against the order will follow according to the statute. One another inference can be drawn though not directly flowing from the judgments, is that, the remanding back to the AO is not reckoned as extension of lis pending before the Tribunal, albeit, the set-aside or remand back to the file of AO is disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal and all the consequence of passing of fresh assessment order will follow. Most of these judgments have been rendered under writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court where non adherence to procedure laid down in section 144C has been struck down or has been held as nullity.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1