Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)
India Medtronic P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 31 December, 2015 cites

Ici India Ltd. vs Dcit, Sr-15 on 25 November, 2003

Therefore, we find that it is fair to give an opportunity to the TPO / AO to apply the ratio of the said judgment and others, if any, and remand this issue to the file of the AO considering the plethora of orders of the Tribunal referred above ie the case of Toshiba India (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (supra); (ii) Casio India Co. (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (supra); (iii) Valvoline Cimmins (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (supra)and (iv) Reebok India Company vs. DCIT (supra). It is also legally settled issue that the TPO / AO are required to adopt „bundled approach‟ in benchmarking the AMP expenses as well. No contrary decisions are brought to our notice by the Ld DR. They should not unfairly segregate AMP expenses while benchmarking, when the TPO accepts the comparables adopted by the assessee as a „bundled transaction‟, treating the AMP expenses as a separate international transaction, is not proper. Because, the said comparables are accepted after comparing the various functions performed by the tested party and the AMP expenses are duly accounted for in such comparing analysis. Making adjustments to AMP expenses segregated from the „bundled transactions‟ will only lead to the situation of making additions thereby increasing PLI unfairly. Regarding the fetters to the AO, we find that the assessee has considered the benchmarking of the AMP transactions in his TP studies. The TPO‟s order is self- explanatory regarding the rejection of the said comparables and thrusting of his five comparables. On these facts, we find that in the remanding proceedings, AO / TPO 8 shall consider the same comparables when resorting to any search in this regard.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 45 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 1 July, 2010

Further, TPO is directed to apply all the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suziki India Limited vs. CIT in ITA No. 110/ 2014 and ITA 710/2015, dated 11th December, 2015 in the remand proceedings in the matters of the requirement of benchmarking the AMP transactions. With these directions, we remand the issue relating to the TP adjustments raised by the assessee and the Revenue in their cross appeals as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee. Thus, all the relevant grounds raised by the assessee as well as the Revenue in their respective appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 30 - V K Jain - Full Document

Commisioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. on 24 December, 2010

Addressing the Departmental stand in the earlier years, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT (A) allowed the said ground in the AY 2007-2008 in favour of the assessee relying on the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (197 Taxman 25) (Delhi) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Swaty Synthetics Ltd vs. ITO (38 SOT 208) (Mumbai ITAT) and the Allied Photographics (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 72 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Allied Photographies India Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 12 September, 2006

Addressing the Departmental stand in the earlier years, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT (A) allowed the said ground in the AY 2007-2008 in favour of the assessee relying on the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (197 Taxman 25) (Delhi) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Swaty Synthetics Ltd vs. ITO (38 SOT 208) (Mumbai ITAT) and the Allied Photographics (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1