PCL FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDI CIT, NATIONAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Pcl Foods Private Limited, Additional / Joint/ Unit No.-219, Plot No. 2, Deputy/Assistant Vardhman Crown Mall, Lsc, Vs Commissioner Of Income Sector 19, Dwarka, New Tax/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi-110075. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Pan- Aahcp3493L Assessee Revenue

Section 92CA(1) of the Act, by the ITO, ward 19(2), New Delhi to determine the Arm’s length price in respect of international transactions undertaken by the assessee company with its Associates Enterprises. The TPO noted that the assessee had entered into international transactions with the following group entities Sr. Name of the Group Nature of Brief description

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

92A taxpa the by the adopt order A.O. nce payer tion enterp yer taxpa Transf ed of the and as per rise yer er by A.O. natur section and Pricing TPO e 92B the Officer of and countr under busin assess y section ess ment in 92CA year which (3) it is reside nt ANNEXURE II Order under section

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

92A taxpa the by the adopt order A.O. nce payer tion enterp yer taxpa Transf ed of the and as per rise yer er by A.O. natur section and Pricing TPO e 92B the Officer of and countr under busin assess y section ess ment in 92CA year which (3) it is reside nt ANNEXURE II Order under section

M/S DABUR INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

92A of the Act and consequently the order of the CIT (Appeals) upholding the chargeability of royalty from two AEs, as alleged by TPO, is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. 2) That the CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and under the law in upholding the jurisdiction of the TPO to determine "arms length price" in respect of alleged

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DABUR INDIA LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

92A of the Act and consequently the order of the CIT (Appeals) upholding the chargeability of royalty from two AEs, as alleged by TPO, is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. 2) That the CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and under the law in upholding the jurisdiction of the TPO to determine "arms length price" in respect of alleged

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

92A of the Act. We repeat that this assessee and its overseas associate enterprise admittedly fall in this category. There is further no quarrel about its Deltamethrin sale to be in the nature of international transactions u/s. 92B of theAct. We notice that section 92C(1) of the Act postulates arms length price computation by applying six methods namely; comparable

ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INPUT OUTPUT INC.),GURGAON vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ground nos

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Stay No. 206/Del/2016 ( In Ita No. 1607/Del/2015) Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 & Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 Ion Geophysical Corporation Vs. Dcit Circle-2, (Formerly Known As Dehradun. “Input Output Inc.) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 7Th Floor, Building No. 10, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Dlf City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabci 6763 Q & Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Dcit Circle-2, Vs. Ion Geophysical Corporation (Appellant) ( Respondent)

92A to 92F of the Act and Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules). 10. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP has failed to provide any rationale for attributing income at the rate of 15% of gross receipts 11. That the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act to the Appellant. 4. Apropos ground

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION, GURGAON

In the result ground nos

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Stay No. 206/Del/2016 ( In Ita No. 1607/Del/2015) Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 & Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 Ion Geophysical Corporation Vs. Dcit Circle-2, (Formerly Known As Dehradun. “Input Output Inc.) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 7Th Floor, Building No. 10, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Dlf City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabci 6763 Q & Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Dcit Circle-2, Vs. Ion Geophysical Corporation (Appellant) ( Respondent)

92A to 92F of the Act and Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules). 10. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP has failed to provide any rationale for attributing income at the rate of 15% of gross receipts 11. That the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act to the Appellant. 4. Apropos ground

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92A of the Act, this understanding or arrangement has to be shown to exist. If the assessee denies having any such arrangement or understanding with its AE or when there is no apparent material on record to show that there exists any agreement, arrangement or action in concert between the two related parties, the onus rests on the Revenue

SANSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92A of the Act, this understanding or arrangement has to be shown to exist. If the assessee denies having any such arrangement or understanding with its AE or when there is no apparent material on record to show that there exists any agreement, arrangement or action in concert between the two related parties, the onus rests on the Revenue

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD.,, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92A of the Act, this understanding or arrangement has to be shown to exist. If the assessee denies having any such arrangement or understanding with its AE or when there is no apparent material on record to show that there exists any agreement, arrangement or action in concert between the two related parties, the onus rests on the Revenue

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92A of the Act, this understanding or arrangement has to be shown to exist. If the assessee denies having any such arrangement or understanding with its AE or when there is no apparent material on record to show that there exists any agreement, arrangement or action in concert between the two related parties, the onus rests on the Revenue

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92A of the Act, this understanding or arrangement has to be shown to exist. If the assessee denies having any such arrangement or understanding with its AE or when there is no apparent material on record to show that there exists any agreement, arrangement or action in concert between the two related parties, the onus rests on the Revenue

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92A of the Act, this understanding or arrangement has to be shown to exist. If the assessee denies having any such arrangement or understanding with its AE or when there is no apparent material on record to show that there exists any agreement, arrangement or action in concert between the two related parties, the onus rests on the Revenue

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92A of the Act, this understanding or arrangement has to be shown to exist. If the assessee denies having any such arrangement or understanding with its AE or when there is no apparent material on record to show that there exists any agreement, arrangement or action in concert between the two related parties, the onus rests on the Revenue

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92A of the Act, this understanding or arrangement has to be shown to exist. If the assessee denies having any such arrangement or understanding with its AE or when there is no apparent material on record to show that there exists any agreement, arrangement or action in concert between the two related parties, the onus rests on the Revenue

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PERSYS PUNJ LLOYD JV, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA no 1270 to 1274/Del/2012 for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS certificates with the return of income and claimed the credit for the same. Therefore, the issue before ld. AO was whether the appellant was to be assessed in the capacity of an Association of Person (AOP) or the members of the AOP were assessable to tax separately in their individual capacity, on this issue, Ld. AO took a stand

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PERSYS PUNJ LLOYD JV, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA no 1270 to 1274/Del/2012 for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS certificates with the return of income and claimed the credit for the same. Therefore, the issue before ld. AO was whether the appellant was to be assessed in the capacity of an Association of Person (AOP) or the members of the AOP were assessable to tax separately in their individual capacity, on this issue, Ld. AO took a stand