Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT & Anr.

288 ITR 52High Court2007#3041 most cited

What is Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT & Anr. authority for?

A prima facie opinion by the Assessing Officer is sufficient to make a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Assessing Officer is not required to form a considered opinion after examining all materials before making a reference.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sony India Pvt Ltd · 288 ITR 52 · Section 92C · Section 92CA · reference to TPO · prima facie opinion · Assessing Officer · Transfer Pricing Officer · arm's length price

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 54Section 92BSection 92C(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 92bcomparable companiessection 92ca(3)arm's length pricemost appropriate methodsection 92casection 92cassociated enterpriseassociated enterprisestransfer pricing adjustmentinternational transactionsection 144c(13)

Judgments citing Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT & Anr.

Vermeiren India Rehab Private Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

…tware Centre Private Limited [2008] 26 SOT 226; Order of ITAT, 12 ITA.No.1315 /Hyd./2024 Mumbai in the case of Indo American Jewellery Ltd., vide ITA.No.6194/Mum./2008; Mentor Graphics (Noida) Private Limited 109 ITD 101 and Sony India Private Limited [2007] 288 ITR 52. 8.1. With respect to the wrong application of 75% manufacturing income filter noted by the TPO, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, not all companies disclose manufacturing income, making the filter's application unreliable. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee drew the attention of the Bench pointing-out certain errors where, no…

Assimilate Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

ITA 5357/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassimilate Solutions India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Circle 1 (1), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. C – 763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan :Aakca4501H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. M/S. Assimilate Solutions India Private Limited, The Assessee Was Incorporated On 19.04,2012 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assimilate Solutions India Private Limited, vs. DCIT/ACIT, C/o Sanjiv Sapra & Associates LLP, Circle 1 (1), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. C – 763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (PAN :AAKCA4501H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, AR REVENUE BY : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of Order : 15.10.2025 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against assessment…

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…ing arm's length price of the international transaction Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd.'s case (109 ITD 101) Philips Software Centre Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2008) 119 TTJ 721 (Bangalore)] Sony India Private Limited, (2007) 288 ITR 52 Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs. ACIT (Transfer Pricing) W. P. (C) 6876/2008) Indo American Jewellery Limited (supra) The adjustments made by the learned TPO should be deleted as the learned TPO was unable to provide any cogent or sound reasoning for rejection of the analysis undertaken by the Assessee TPO's C…

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sofdel Systems P..Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA no

ITA 3618/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 250Section 92C

…AEs from its customers, for the services provided by the appellant; the price charged by AEs to the customers being the CUP. Reliance is placed in this regard on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India P. Ltd. vs. CBDT (Delhi) ; 288 ITR 52 has at pages 61-62, observed as under: "The concept of transfer pricing leading to tax avoidance has been acknowledged in the Act only recently. It is a concomitant of the operations of multinational corporations (MNCs) that set up base by incorporating a local subsidiary in a country where they seek to operate. It is often seen that the MNC trans…

Trigyn Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 6585/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6585/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Trigyn Technologies Ltd. Unit no.27, SDF–1, Seepz–SEZ ……………. Appellant Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 096 PAN – AAACL2065K v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–11(3)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Date of Hearing – 03.02.2022 Date of Order – 04.03.2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been preferred by t…

Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. National E- Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 488/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shashi Bhusan Shukla, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…. f) Lastly, these adjustments are to be added to the profit margin of comparable companies as finally determined in accordance with the directions of this Panel. 14. The Revenue relied on the judicial decisions in Mentor Graphics (109 ITD 101), Sony India (288 ITR 52 (Delhi- IT AT), Philips Software (26 SOT 226) (Bangalore- ITAT), Mercer 8 Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd. Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd (Delhi ITAT), Sunlife India Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2015-TII-420-ITAT-DEL-TP). 15. In a word, the TPO is directed to give working capital adjustment by applying SBI PLR (as on 30th June…

M/S. Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 978/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 978/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Lotus Tower, Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Community Center, New Friends New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6413A Ita No. 933/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Lotus Tower, Community Income Tax, Circle-6(1), New Delhi Center, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6413A Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2020 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 92C

…being dismissed relying on the order of the Special Bench Bangalore of ITAT in the case of M/s Aztec Software and Technology Services Ltd. in ITA No. 584/BLR/2006 dated 12.06.2007 and judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 288 ITR 52. 6. During the year, the assessee had transaction value of Rs.271,81,364/- on account of sale of dumpers and Rs.27,08,067/- on account of marine fuels. As per the TP report, the gross profit on sale of goods has been calculated at Rs.14,55,820/- which corresponds to 4.87% of the sales. The AO held that OP/TC of unrelated party segment has been cal…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 933/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 978/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Lotus Tower, Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Community Center, New Friends New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6413A Ita No. 933/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Lotus Tower, Community Income Tax, Circle-6(1), New Delhi Center, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6413A Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2020 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 92C

…being dismissed relying on the order of the Special Bench Bangalore of ITAT in the case of M/s Aztec Software and Technology Services Ltd. in ITA No. 584/BLR/2006 dated 12.06.2007 and judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 288 ITR 52. 6. During the year, the assessee had transaction value of Rs.271,81,364/- on account of sale of dumpers and Rs.27,08,067/- on account of marine fuels. As per the TP report, the gross profit on sale of goods has been calculated at Rs.14,55,820/- which corresponds to 4.87% of the sales. The AO held that OP/TC of unrelated party segment has been cal…

Nymphea Developers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7555/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)

…Act, after the Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm's length price at nil under section 92CA(3). Hence this argument is devoid of merit." Indeed, a Division Bench of this Court, in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Anr., [2007] 288 ITR 52 (Delhi) (albeit considering the law prior to the 2007 amendment to the Act), concurred with this view: "18 ... a reading of Section 92C and 92CA does not indicate that the AO is required to form a prior considered opinion after considering all the available materials even ITA 475/2012 Page 33 before making a reference to the TPO. A prima facie op…

Fulford (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT.(OSD)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6154/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Fulford (India) Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Platina C-59, Vs. Income Tax (Osd)-2(1), Mumbai G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400098 Pan No. Aaacf1795L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT- DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 250(4)Section 92BSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Fulford (India) Limited, The Assistant Commissioner of 8th floor, Platina C-59, Vs. Income Tax (OSD)-2(1), Mumbai G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400098 PAN No. AAACF1795L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Mathur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue by : Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT- DR & Mr. C. Anjaria, DR Last date of Hearing : 30/08/2019 : 25/11/2019 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1067/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…d provisions. The said case of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was cited before the DRP, but the same was not referred. He then drew our attention to the ratio laid down in Sony India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 52 (Del), which is a case explaining the situation prior to 2007 and meaning of expression ‘having regard’ has been explained. He stressed that after the amendment in 2007, law says that the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the TPO’s order. So, it is all the more necessary that before making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer should issu…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1066/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…d provisions. The said case of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was cited before the DRP, but the same was not referred. He then drew our attention to the ratio laid down in Sony India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 52 (Del), which is a case explaining the situation prior to 2007 and meaning of expression ‘having regard’ has been explained. He stressed that after the amendment in 2007, law says that the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the TPO’s order. So, it is all the more necessary that before making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer should issu…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1065/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…d provisions. The said case of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was cited before the DRP, but the same was not referred. He then drew our attention to the ratio laid down in Sony India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 52 (Del), which is a case explaining the situation prior to 2007 and meaning of expression ‘having regard’ has been explained. He stressed that after the amendment in 2007, law says that the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the TPO’s order. So, it is all the more necessary that before making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer should issu…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1064/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…d provisions. The said case of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was cited before the DRP, but the same was not referred. He then drew our attention to the ratio laid down in Sony India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 52 (Del), which is a case explaining the situation prior to 2007 and meaning of expression ‘having regard’ has been explained. He stressed that after the amendment in 2007, law says that the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the TPO’s order. So, it is all the more necessary that before making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer should issu…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1063/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…d provisions. The said case of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was cited before the DRP, but the same was not referred. He then drew our attention to the ratio laid down in Sony India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 52 (Del), which is a case explaining the situation prior to 2007 and meaning of expression ‘having regard’ has been explained. He stressed that after the amendment in 2007, law says that the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the TPO’s order. So, it is all the more necessary that before making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer should issu…

M/S. Sava Healthcare Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

ITA 1062/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 92C(3)

…d provisions. The said case of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was cited before the DRP, but the same was not referred. He then drew our attention to the ratio laid down in Sony India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 52 (Del), which is a case explaining the situation prior to 2007 and meaning of expression ‘having regard’ has been explained. He stressed that after the amendment in 2007, law says that the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the TPO’s order. So, it is all the more necessary that before making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer should issu…

Qualcom India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1810/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen K. Aggarwal &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘I-1, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2009-10 Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle 14(1) Unit No.201 C.R.Building 2nd Floor New Delhi 15 Tolstoy Marg vs. New Delhi 110 001 PAN: AAACQ0231C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Naveen K. Aggarwal & Sh. Ravi Bharadwaj, CAs. Department by : Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 02/05/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/ 2019 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against final assessm…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Omniglobe Information Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 1380/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Ward 19 (1), Vs. M/S. Omniglobe Information Technologies New Delhi. (I) Pvt. Ltd., E – 11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. (Pan : Aaaco6606M) (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms. Nimita Pandey, Senior Dr

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Ward 19 (1), vs. M/s. Omniglobe Information Technologies New Delhi. (I) Pvt. Ltd., E – 11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. (PAN : AAACO6606M) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR Ms. Nimita Pandey, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 28.03.2019 Date of Order : 15.04.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appellant, ITO, Ward 19 (1),…

Haldor Topsoe (I) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 654/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. H.P. Aggarwal, FCA, and Ms. Prashuka Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…f e) comparable companies as finally determined in accordance with the directions of this Panel. 7.2.5 In allowing the working, capital adjustment, this DRP carries strength from the following judicial decisions. Mentor Graphics (109 ITD 101) • Sony India (288 ITR 52 (Delhi- ITAT) • Page 70 of 112 ITA No.-654/Del/2015. Haldor Topsoe India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Philips Software (26 SOT 226) (Bangalore- ITAT) • 8. Issue III Whether AO/TPO is right in denying any adjustment on account of risk, while working out the average margins of the comparables. 8.2 Having gone through the taxpayer's submission in this r…

Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5404/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15] Avery Dennison [India] Pvt.Ltd., Vs. The A.C.I.T, P-24, Green Park Extension, Circle - 3(2), New Delhi. New Delhi [Pan: Aaaca 6163 D] [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2018 Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv Shri S.S. Tomar, Adv

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…Act, after the Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm's length price at nil under section 92CA(3). Hence this argument is devoid of merit." Indeed, a Division Bench of this Court, in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Anr., [2007] 288 ITR 52 (Delhi) (albeit considering the law prior to the 2007 amendment to the Act), concurred with this view: "18 ... a reading of Section 92C and 92CA does not indicate that the AO is required to form a prior considered opinion after considering all the available materials even ITA 475/2012 Page 33 before making a reference to the TPO. A prima facie op…

Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT & Anr. (288 ITR 52) — Cited in 39 Judgments | BharatTax