BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

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

transfer pricing documentation by applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’). Since the profit margin of the assessee at 33.95% was higher than the median margin of 10.16% earned by the comparable companies, the transaction was considered to be at arm’s length. The TPO, however, relying upon the orders for the earlier years, rejected the TNMM method applied

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

transfer pricing adjustment of interest payment on loan. 8. We have heard ld. Sr. Counsel as well as ld. DR and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below on this issue as well asthe decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years. At the outset we note that this Tribunal for the assessment

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer 3(2)(2) (“TPO”) for determination of arm’s length price of the specified domestic transactions (“SDT”) / international transactions undertaken by the Applicant. 9. The TPO vide order dated 30 January 2019 held that the applicant has earned more than ordinary profits from its Section 80-IC business and proposed an adjustment of Rs.5

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer 3(2)(2) (“TPO”) for determination of arm’s length price of the specified domestic transactions (“SDT”) / international transactions undertaken by the Applicant. 9. The TPO vide order dated 30 January 2019 held that the applicant has earned more than ordinary profits from its Section 80-IC business and proposed an adjustment of Rs.5

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDN BHD,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

42 (Delhi) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that additional grounds of appeal require verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same should not be admitted at this stage. 5. After considering the submissions and perused the additional ground of appeal taken, we find that the assessee has challenged the validity

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDN BHD,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

42 (Delhi) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that additional grounds of appeal require verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same should not be admitted at this stage. 5. After considering the submissions and perused the additional ground of appeal taken, we find that the assessee has challenged the validity

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDNBHD,MALAYSIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

42 (Delhi) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that additional grounds of appeal require verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same should not be admitted at this stage. 5. After considering the submissions and perused the additional ground of appeal taken, we find that the assessee has challenged the validity