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)

92C(2) of the Act. 5. That on facts and in law and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of I AO in making a disallowance of Rs. 8,96,000/- by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act. 5.1 That on facts and in law in absence of a valid satisfaction being recorded

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

92C in provided in Rule 10B of the I.T. Rules, 2961. After examining the parameters prescribed in Rule 10B, it can be seen that bad debts written off cannot be factor to determine the arm’s length price of any international transaction. In our opinion, the TPO has exceeded his limitation by following the method which is not authorized under

MITSUI & CO INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

Appeals are partly allowed and

Bench: Shri S.V.Mehrotrashri Kuldip Singhmitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 6 (1), District Centre Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan :Aadcm4488J) Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 16(2), District Centre Saket, New Delhi New Delhi. (Pan :Aadcm4488J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashu Goel, Ca & Shri Ashish, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2016

92C(2). 4. That on facts an in law, AO/TPO has erred in assuming jurisdiction to determine Arm’s Length Price in absence of requisite preconditions in law. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/DRP has erred, both on facts and in law in making/upholding a disallowance of an amount of Rs.23

M/S. MITSUI & CO. INDIA PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are partly allowed and

Bench: Shri S.V.Mehrotrashri Kuldip Singhmitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 6 (1), District Centre Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan :Aadcm4488J) Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 16(2), District Centre Saket, New Delhi New Delhi. (Pan :Aadcm4488J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashu Goel, Ca & Shri Ashish, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2016

92C(2). 4. That on facts an in law, AO/TPO has erred in assuming jurisdiction to determine Arm’s Length Price in absence of requisite preconditions in law. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/DRP has erred, both on facts and in law in making/upholding a disallowance of an amount of Rs.23

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 92C of the Act read with rule 10D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 15. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO /DRP/ TPO erred in not appreciating that all the transactions of the Appellant were established to be at arm’s length by applying the Resale Price Method, and thereafter

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 92C of the Act read with rule 10D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 15. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO /DRP/ TPO erred in not appreciating that all the transactions of the Appellant were established to be at arm’s length by applying the Resale Price Method, and thereafter

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 92C of the Act read with rule 10D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 15. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO /DRP/ TPO erred in not appreciating that all the transactions of the Appellant were established to be at arm’s length by applying the Resale Price Method, and thereafter

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 92C of the Act read with rule 10D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 15. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO /DRP/ TPO erred in not appreciating that all the transactions of the Appellant were established to be at arm’s length by applying the Resale Price Method, and thereafter

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS liability arising out of the contractual obligation. The Reliance is placed on the above mentioned pronouncement of ITAT Mumbai in case of M/S Bob Cards Ltd., Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax, held that payment made as a result of contractual liability is an allowable expenditure. The same view has been expressed by the High Court of Madras

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS liability arising out of the contractual obligation. The Reliance is placed on the above mentioned pronouncement of ITAT Mumbai in case of M/S Bob Cards Ltd., Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax, held that payment made as a result of contractual liability is an allowable expenditure. The same view has been expressed by the High Court of Madras

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs. Exxon Mobil Lubricants P. Ltd., Circle-11(1), Ernst & Young Tower, New Delhi. B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. Pan Aabce0207H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit- Dr Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

92C . Paragraph 1.36 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations published in 2010 indicates the “comparability factors’’ which are important while considering the comparability of uncontrolled transactions or entities with controlled transactions or entities. Rule JOB (2) also mandates that the comparability of international transactions with uncontrolled transactions would be judged with reference

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. 29. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the trade schemes reimbursed to sales promoters is already part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. 29. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the trade schemes reimbursed to sales promoters is already part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

ACIT, CC- 31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. 29. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the trade schemes reimbursed to sales promoters is already part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

TDS by the Ld. CIT(A) in the orders passed in the case of Appellant’s sister concern, Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. 29. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the trade schemes reimbursed to sales promoters is already part of the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal for A

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2012-13 & A.Y. 2013-14 Canon India Pvt.Ltd. Acit, Circle 5(2) 7Th Floor, Tower B Vs. New Delhi Building No.5 Dlf Epitome Dlf Phase Iii Gurgaon

92C(2) of the Act. Further, DRP erred in not adjudicating the objection of the Appellant in this regard. B. Corporate Tax Grounds 1. The Hon’ble DRP has grossly erred in law and on facts in directing the Ld. AO to enhance the income by disallowing Rs. 3,90,27,709/- being the reimbursement to Canon Inc., Japan

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal for A

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2012-13 & A.Y. 2013-14 Canon India Pvt.Ltd. Acit, Circle 5(2) 7Th Floor, Tower B Vs. New Delhi Building No.5 Dlf Epitome Dlf Phase Iii Gurgaon

92C(2) of the Act. Further, DRP erred in not adjudicating the objection of the Appellant in this regard. B. Corporate Tax Grounds 1. The Hon’ble DRP has grossly erred in law and on facts in directing the Ld. AO to enhance the income by disallowing Rs. 3,90,27,709/- being the reimbursement to Canon Inc., Japan

MINDA FURUKAWA ELECTRIC PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 9. The Hon’ble CIT (A)/Learned TPO has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in rejecting the Appellant’s claim to use multiple year data for computing the ALP, and instead used single year updated data to conclude the price of the transaction. 10. The Learned

MINDA FURUKAWA ELECTRIC PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 92C(2) of the Act. 9. The Hon’ble CIT (A)/Learned TPO has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in rejecting the Appellant’s claim to use multiple year data for computing the ALP, and instead used single year updated data to conclude the price of the transaction. 10. The Learned