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)

3 shall exercise such powers and perform such function of Transfer Pricing Officers as mentioned in Section 92CA for the purpose of sections 92C and 92D of the Act, in respect of persons or classes of persons mentioned in column 5:" 5. It was submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate that the expression "…..the Assessing Officer considers

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

3) of section 92C. Sub-section (4) of section 92CA provides that on receipt of the order of the TPO, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm’s length price determined by the TPO. Thus, whereas the determination of the arm’s length price, - - - is required to be done

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

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

section 92C(2) of the Act. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / TPO has erred by ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(3) of the Rules and judicial pronouncements, which advocate usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

section 92C(2) of the Act. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / TPO has erred by ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(3) of the Rules and judicial pronouncements, which advocate usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

section 92C(2) of the Act. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / TPO has erred by ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(3) of the Rules and judicial pronouncements, which advocate usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

section 92C(2) of the Act. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / TPO has erred by ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(3) of the Rules and judicial pronouncements, which advocate usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination

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

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

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

Section 92C(3) of the Act. 4. The learned AO / TPO / DRP have erred by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). Segregation of closely linked transactions 5. The learned AO / TPO / DRP have erred in rejecting the combined transaction approach

M/S VIAVI SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

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

Section 92C(3) of the Act. 4. The learned AO / TPO / DRP have erred by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). Segregation of closely linked transactions 5. The learned AO / TPO / DRP have erred in rejecting the combined transaction approach

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

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

Section 92C(3) of the Act. 4. The learned AO / TPO / DRP have erred by not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). Segregation of closely linked transactions 5. The learned AO / TPO / DRP have erred in rejecting the combined transaction approach

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

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

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

92C(2) of the Act. 2. The Ld. TPO erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law by substituting the comparability analysis conducted by the Assessee for its freight forwarding services with a fresh comparability analysis based on his own conjectures and surmises. Specifically, the Ld. TPO erred by using an approach that had an inherent

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

92C(2) of the Act. 2. The Ld. TPO erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law by substituting the comparability analysis conducted by the Assessee for its freight forwarding services with a fresh comparability analysis based on his own conjectures and surmises. Specifically, the Ld. TPO erred by using an approach that had an inherent

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

TDS'), Tax Collected at Source ('TCS') and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') credit (iv) Erroneous application of surcharge at 12% vis-à-vis surcharge rate of 10% (as provided under section 115BAA of the Act); and (v) Non-computation of interest charged under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The Appellant has also filed a rectification application dated

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92C of the Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the claim of deduction of Rs.2,77,79,494 under section 43B of the Act in respect of leave encashment and gratuity paid before the due date of filing of return merely on the Ground

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92C of the Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the claim of deduction of Rs.2,77,79,494 under section 43B of the Act in respect of leave encashment and gratuity paid before the due date of filing of return merely on the Ground

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92C of the Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the claim of deduction of Rs.2,77,79,494 under section 43B of the Act in respect of leave encashment and gratuity paid before the due date of filing of return merely on the Ground