Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.25 seconds)
Huawei Telecommunications (India) ... vs Acit, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon on 24 February, 2021 cites

Emerson Electric Company ( India) P. ... vs Dcit Cir 3(1), Mumbai on 9 October, 2019

Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 125 (Pune-Trib), Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT and also by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Hive Communication Pvt. Ltd. in Income-tax Appeal 306/2011 and reached the conclusion that in such like circumstances ld. TPO in order to benchmark the transaction has to determine "whether the price paid by the assessee for the services availed is what an independent enterprise would have paid for the same services and the analysis done by the TPO in the nature of services and the benefits arising to the assessee on availing such services was beyond the scope of transfer pricing provisions."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Dresser Rand India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Addl Cit Rg 6(2), Mumbai on 9 November, 2020

Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 125 (Pune-Trib), Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT and also by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Hive Communication Pvt. Ltd. in Income-tax Appeal 306/2011 and reached the conclusion that in such like circumstances ld. TPO in order to benchmark the transaction has to determine "whether the price paid by the assessee for the services availed is what an independent enterprise would have paid for the same services and the analysis done by the TPO in the nature of services and the benefits arising to the assessee on availing such services was beyond the scope of transfer pricing provisions."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S. Cushman And Wakefield (India) Pvt. ... on 23 May, 2014

23. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Cushman and Wakefield India (P) Ltd. (2015) 60 taxmann.com 168 (Delhi) judgment dated 07.05.2015 has held that, "the court first notes that the authority of TPO is to conduct transfer pricing analysis to determine the ALP and not to determine whether there is a service or not from which the assessee benefits."
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 113 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Casa Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Pr Cit 6, Mumbai on 13 February, 2019

30. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 289 ITR 26 (SC) has held that, "the expression "commercial expediency" is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurred for the purpose of business. Such expenditure may not have been incurred under legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of "commercial expediency". So, we are of the considered view that commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by a businessman has to be examined from the perspective of business person and not from the perspective of a tax authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 34 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

M/S Madras Industrial ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tamil ... on 4 April, 1997

"The Tribunal has rightly noticed and referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Pepsico India Cold Drink Ltd. [2012J 207 Taxman 5/21 taxmann.com 165 wherein, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC) was 'examined and it was observed that the Assessee is entitled to claim deferred revenue expenditure but the Assessing Officer cannot treat the revenue expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure. The reason is that the Act itself does not have any concept of deferred revenue expenditure. Even otherwise, there are a number of decisions that the advertisement expenditure normally is and should be treated as revenue in nature because advertisements do not have long lasting effect and once the advertisements stop, the effect thereof on the general public and customer diminishes and vanished soon thereafter. Advertisements do not leave a long lasting and permanent effect in the sense that the product or service has to be repeatedly advertised. Even otherwise advertisement expense is a day to day expense incurred for running the business and improving sales. It is noticeable that every year, the respondent-Assessee has been incurring substantial expenditure on advertisements. The Assessing Officer, in the assessment order, had referred to the fact that similar additions were also made in the Assessment Year 2008-09. Keeping in view the nature and character of the respondent-Assessee's business, every year expenditure has to be incurred to make and keep public informed, aware and remain in limelight. This requires continuous and repeated publicity and advertisements to remain in public eye, to do business by attracting customers. It is an expenditure of trading nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 445 - Full Document

Sassoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd., Bombay vs C.I.T., Bombay on 3 May, 1979

33. Similarly, findings returned by the AO and confirmed by the ld. DRP that advertisement expenses incurred by the taxpayer will increase the brand image of the group company of Huawei Technology and disallowed the advertisement expenses to the tune 21 ITA No.7509/Del./2017 ITA No.7510/Del./2017 of 30% is also not sustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC) held that, "the fact that somebody other than the assessee is also benefited by the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act if it satisfied otherwise the tests laid down by law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 337 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next