BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2009-10] & [A.Y 2012-13]

Purchase of compound Alcoholic 1 Preparation 2 Distribution of Imported Liquor 17280852 RPM 3 10782778 TNMM Provision of Marketing Support services 4 Re-imbursement of expenses 19067033 No No bench benchmarki 5 Recovery of expenses 721078 marking ng/ ___________________________________________________________ 7. The TPO did not interfere with the bench marking in respect of transactions at Sl. Nos. 1 & 4 and 5 above

M/S. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2009-10] & [A.Y 2012-13]

Purchase of compound Alcoholic 1 Preparation 2 Distribution of Imported Liquor 17280852 RPM 3 10782778 TNMM Provision of Marketing Support services 4 Re-imbursement of expenses 19067033 No No bench benchmarki 5 Recovery of expenses 721078 marking ng/ ___________________________________________________________ 7. The TPO did not interfere with the bench marking in respect of transactions at Sl. Nos. 1 & 4 and 5 above

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2007-08 Dcit, Circle 6(1) Vs. Michelin India Tyre Pvt.Ltd. Room No.413 401-404, 4Th Floor C.R.Building Copla Corporate Suits I.P.Estate Jasola District Centre New Delhi New Delhi 110 076 Pan: Aadcm8454G A.Y. 2007-08 Michelin India Tyre Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 6(1) 401-404, 4Th Floor Room No.413 Copla Corporate Suits C.R.Building Jasola District Centre I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 076 New Delhi Pan: Aadcm8454G (Appellant) (Respondent)

92B read with Section 92F of the Act. That the Learned TPO / Learned CIT(A) have grossly erred both in law and 4.2 on facts while benchmarking the impugned transaction of the Appellant without following the scientific process prescribed under the Indian transfer pricing regulations. The Learned TPO / Learned CIT(A) did not conclusively determine a most appropriate method prescribed

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

purchased and therefore, the cost of acquisition of such goodwill in the hands of the assessee should be taken as nil. Once again the DR has erred in not understanding the scheme of amalgamation. In the order of the Hon’ble High Court itself it is clearly mentioned that anything paid over and above the net asset value

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

purchased and therefore, the cost of acquisition of such goodwill in the hands of the assessee should be taken as nil. Once again the DR has erred in not understanding the scheme of amalgamation. In the order of the Hon’ble High Court itself it is clearly mentioned that anything paid over and above the net asset value

TERADATA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Teradata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Tower-4A, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon S-Block, Dlf Corporate Park, Dlf City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aacct6715A (Appellant) (Respondent) & S.A. No.977/Del/2018 [Arising Out Of Ita No.8054/Del/2018] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Teradata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Tower-4A, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon S-Block, Dlf Corporate Park, Dlf City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aacct6715A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Department By Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

Section 92B of the Act of the expression ‘receivables’ does not mean that de hors the context every item of ‘receivables’ appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be characterised as an international transaction. There may be a delay in collection of monies for supplies made, even beyond the agreed limit

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MEK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

bogus payment. 3. The assessee assailed the assessment order in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee and the remand report furnished by AO, allowed the appeal vide impugned order. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. DR submitted that the first year of the financial year ending

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

92B of the Act thus not subject to assessment under Chapter-X. It was further submitted that TPO/DRP has rejected the valid comparable data obtained by the assessee in the form of quotation received from HDFC bank without assigning any cogent reason for such action. In view of the above, he requested that no adjustment is required as @0.25% charged

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

92B of the Act thus not subject to assessment under Chapter-X. It was further submitted that TPO/DRP has rejected the valid comparable data obtained by the assessee in the form of quotation received from HDFC bank without assigning any cogent reason for such action. In view of the above, he requested that no adjustment is required as @0.25% charged