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.

M/S Viavi Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 231/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…h computation of the working capital of the tested party and comparables, Ld. DRP directed the Ld. TPO to give the working capital adjustment. For this purpose Ld. DRP took strength from the decisions in the cases of Mentor graphics (109 ITD 101), Sony India (288 ITR 52 Delhi-ITAT) and Philips software (26 SOT 226 Bangalore-ITAT). 23. In view of the impact of the trade receivables, trade payables and inventory on the interest cost and depending upon the interest cost the margins change their volumes; we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the directions given by the Ld. DRP in respect of the working cap…

Viavi Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Jdsu India Pvt. Ltd), Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 1483/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…h computation of the working capital of the tested party and comparables, Ld. DRP directed the Ld. TPO to give the working capital adjustment. For this purpose Ld. DRP took strength from the decisions in the cases of Mentor graphics (109 ITD 101), Sony India (288 ITR 52 Delhi-ITAT) and Philips software (26 SOT 226 Bangalore-ITAT). 23. In view of the impact of the trade receivables, trade payables and inventory on the interest cost and depending upon the interest cost the margins change their volumes; we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the directions given by the Ld. DRP in respect of the working cap…

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 1478/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…h computation of the working capital of the tested party and comparables, Ld. DRP directed the Ld. TPO to give the working capital adjustment. For this purpose Ld. DRP took strength from the decisions in the cases of Mentor graphics (109 ITD 101), Sony India (288 ITR 52 Delhi-ITAT) and Philips software (26 SOT 226 Bangalore-ITAT). 23. In view of the impact of the trade receivables, trade payables and inventory on the interest cost and depending upon the interest cost the margins change their volumes; we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the directions given by the Ld. DRP in respect of the working cap…

M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre P. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 640/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.640/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No.701, 7Th Floor, Building No.9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan: Aalcs2048C Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (It)-Ii, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

For Appellant: Shri Kamal SawhneyFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…ed Representative for the assessee further made reference to the CBDT’s Instruction, copy of which is placed at pages 2 to 4 of the Paper Book. He further relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBDT (2006) 288 ITR 52 (Del), wherein the constitutional validity of Instruction No.3 dated 20.05.2003 was challenged. He further placed emphasis on the ratio laid down by the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. SG Asia Holdings India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2399/Mum/2009, relating to assessment year 2005-06, order dated 22.04.2015, wherein it was held tha…

Madhu Jayanti International Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 214/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

…be necessary to protect our tax base, there is a need to ensure that the taxpayers are not put to avoidable hardship in the implementation (If these Regulations. " (Emphasis supplied) The assessee would also like to point out that in Sony India's case (2007) 288 ITR 52 (Del), it was held that: "Sub-section (3) of section 92C envisages the AO having to form an opinion on the existence of the factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) as a pre-condition to proceeding to himself determine the Arms' Length Price. In other words, acceptance of the Arms' Length Price declared by the assessee is the rule and its rejecti…

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as discussed above

ITA 20/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. HK Chaudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…apital adjustment has to be made in the case of the comparables, which has been upheld in various judicial rulings by coordinate benches of this Tribunal, which are as under: • Mentor Graphics Noida Pvt. Ltd., reported in 109 ITD 101, • Sony India reported in 288 ITR 52, • Philips software reported in 25 SOT 226 and • Mercer Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 150 ITD 1. 9.1. On the contrary Ld.CIT DR placed reliance upon the orders of authorities below 9.2. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides and the light of the records placed before us and the decisions relied upon by Ld. counsel. 9.3…

Amricon Agrovet Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 EM By-Pass, [PAN No.AACCA 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 EM By-Pass, [PAN No.AACCA 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""…

Amricon Agrovet Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 755/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 EM By-Pass, [PAN No.AACCA 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 EM By-Pass, [PAN No.AACCA 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""…

Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 754/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 EM By-Pass, [PAN No.AACCA 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 EM By-Pass, [PAN No.AACCA 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""…

Amrit Feeds Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 753/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 EM By-Pass, [PAN No.AACCA 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 EM By-Pass, [PAN No.AACCA 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Watches Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4374/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. B. Ramanjanyulu, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Advocate
Section 92C

…the ITAT at Para 22 of the order mentioned supra, that it is not necessary for the AO to demonstrate tax avoidance and diversion of tax before invoking provisions of section 92C and 92CA of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. 288 ITR 52 has also upheld this view. 12.6. From the above discussion, I hold that reference made by the AO to the TPO is not bad in law and accordingly TPO's order is not void ab-initio. There is no need to establish the motivation to manipulate "Transfer Pricing". Ground No. 12.2 to 12.10 are taken together and adjudicated. 12.7. The appellant is engaged…

M/S Obulapuram Mining Company P. Ltd., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K.Mathew, CIT-III
Section 263Section 92A

…ces Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India (Supra) and held that the CBDT Instruction No.3 dated 20-05-2003 is contrary to the decision being taken and regarding the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of M/s Sony India Pvt. Ld., as reported in 288 ITR 52 (Del.), it was held that this decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Sony India Pvt. Ld.,(Supra) is not applicable after the amendment in 2007. He further submitted that in the present case, the assessment year involved in 2008-09 i.e. after the amendment of 2007 and therefore, this Board Instruction No.3 dated 20-05-2003…

Exevo India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 907/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 90

…made in the case of the comparables, which has been upheld in 22 I.T.A.No. 907/Del/2016. various judicial rulings by coordinate benches of this Tribunal, which are as under: • Mentor Graphics Noida Pvt. Ltd., reported in 109 ITD 101, • Sony India reported in 288 ITR 52, • Philips software reported in 25 SOT 226 and • Mercer Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 150 ITD 1. 6.1. Respectfully following the ratio is laid down in the above judgments we are in agreement with the Ld.AR, that while comparing the margins earned by the comparable companies there is always the assessee, the difference on account of workin…

Skf Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 1481/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT – DR -I
Section 144C(5)

…n made under section 92C(4) of the 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. CBDT [2007] 288 ITR 52 (Delhi) (albeit considering the law prior to the 2007 amendment to the Act), concurred with this view (pages 69 and 74 of 288 ITR) : "a reading of section 92C and section 92CA does not indicate that the Assessing Officer is required to form a prior considered opinion after considering all the available materials even before making a reference to t…

DCIT Circle-11 (1) vs. Exl Services Com (India) Pvt. Ltd

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

ITA 1982/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2004-2005

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Inturi Rama Rao

…s the assessee is not serious in contesting the issue as on facts the assessee is confident that there would be no transfer pricing adjustments. Thus the ground has been filed only to keep the issue alive and reliance is placed on Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs CBDT 288 ITR 52 (Del.) and Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT and Ramp Green Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (ITA No.102/2015) of the Delhi High Court. 16. The Ld. CIT DR relying upon the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case in the 2003-04 assessment year submitted that he would want to rely on the detailed finding therein on similarity o…

Exi Service Com (India) (P) Ltd vs. ACIT Circle-11 (1)

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

ITA 1940/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2004-2005

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Inturi Rama Rao

…s the assessee is not serious in contesting the issue as on facts the assessee is confident that there would be no transfer pricing adjustments. Thus the ground has been filed only to keep the issue alive and reliance is placed on Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs CBDT 288 ITR 52 (Del.) and Sony Ericson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT and Ramp Green Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (ITA No.102/2015) of the Delhi High Court. 16. The Ld. CIT DR relying upon the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case in the 2003-04 assessment year submitted that he would want to rely on the detailed finding therein on similarity o…

CIT vs. Cushman and Wakefield India Pvt Ltd

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA - 475 / 2012HC Delhi23 May 2014
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…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 2014:DHC:2764-DB ITA 475/2012 Page 34 before making a reference to the TPO.…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amadeus India Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/938/2011HC Delhi28 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Ms Suruchi AggarwalFor Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mayank Nagi &
Section 144CSection 260ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92E

…gard to such transactions. It may be noted that the reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer is transaction and enterprise specific.” 12. He also relied upon the decision of this court in Sony India P. Ltd v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another: (2007) 288 ITR 52 (Delhi) as also on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in M/s Veer Gems v. ACIT in Special Civil Application No.12648 of 2011 dated 19.10.2011. Mr Syali also 2011:DHC:6027-DB ITA 938/11 Page 9 of 20 referred to the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2011. By virtue of which sub-section (2A) was inserted in Section 92CA with effect from…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 504 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92Section 92CSection 92D

…CBDT instruction no.3 dated 20th May, 2003 by CBDT. According to Mr. Syali, this was misreading of the said instruction which was only in the nature of a guideline as held by this Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another 288 ITR 52. Relevant portion of this instruction reads as under:- “…wherever the aggregate value of international transactions exceeds ` 5 crores, the cases should be picked up for scrutiny and reference under Section 92CA be made to the TPO. If there are more than one transaction with the associated enterprise or there are transaction with more tha…