erred in facts and in law in selecting Modicare Ltd as a
single comparable company for an arm's length analysis even though this ... assessee.
Table 3: Sales trend of Oriflame India vis-à-vis Modicare Limited (INR)
Sales Oriflame India Year on Year Modicare Limited Year on Year
Modicare Ltd vs The Intelligence Officer on 4 January, 2017
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic , Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ... COURT OF KERALA
DATED 04-01-2017
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------------
M/S. MODICARE LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, JANATHA ROAD,
VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM , KOCHI 19,
REPRESENTED BY VASANTHA
Certain
comparables were chosen by the assessee. The TPO observed that only
Modicare Ltd. was a direct marketer, like the assessee. He, therefore,
rejected ... other companies chosen by the assessee as comparable and
treated Modicare Ltd. as a sole comparable. GP/Sales margin of
Modicare Ltd. was initially computed
applying the test of essential feature;
(XIX) M/s Aravind Laboratories Vs. Modicare 2011-4-L.W.55
(Mad) denying interim injunction to the proprietor
PCIT to conduct such enquiry. Further in LD.
PCIT v. Modicare Limited [ITA No. 759/2017] Delhi High Court has
followed its decision in Income
incumbent on the PCIT to conduct
such enquiry. Further in PCIT v. Modicare Limited [ITA No. 759/2017]
Delhi High Court has followed its decision
Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001 (5) SCC 73);
vi) Aravind Laboratories Vs Modicare (2011 (4) LW 55);
vii) Duraco Products Vs Joy Plastic Enterprises (32 USPQ
