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)

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

capital gains’ on the ground that the said expenditure was relatable to earning of exempt income. 5. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of professional fee of Rs. 14.74 paid to Prof. Tarun Khanna, a non-resident, for rendering consultancy services for scenario planning exercises of the appellant, under section

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

capital gains’ on the ground that the said expenditure was relatable to earning of exempt income. 5. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of professional fee of Rs. 14.74 paid to Prof. Tarun Khanna, a non-resident, for rendering consultancy services for scenario planning exercises of the appellant, under section

LI & FUNG INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order dated 25/11/11 of the ITAT Tribunal, Delhi Branch

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 92C(2) of the Act and Rule 10B of the Rules provide the manner in which such methods should be applied by the assessee, assessing officer, Transfer Pricing Officer, etc. 11. Mr. Porus Kaka, learned senior counsel, while stating that the TNMM was chosen by LFIL as the appropriate method to calculate the arm‟s length, provided the court

TOPCON SINGAPORE POSITIONING PTE LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, while ITA No

Bench: Us Is A Singapore Based Company Which Held 7,49,999 Shares In An Indian Company By The Name Of Topcon Sokkia India Pvt Ltd (Tsipl, In Short) & 1 Share

capital gain in INR - 4,96,54,075 Less: STCG already calculated by assessee - 3,57,37,840 Difference - 1,39,16,235 9. The Assessing Officer shall enhance the income of the assessee by an amount of Rs1,39,16,235/- while computing its total income. The Assessing Officer may examine issue of initiation of penalty

TOPCON SINGAPORE POSITIONING PTE LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, NEW DELHI

In the result, while ITA No

Bench: Us Is A Singapore Based Company Which Held 7,49,999 Shares In An Indian Company By The Name Of Topcon Sokkia India Pvt Ltd (Tsipl, In Short) & 1 Share

capital gain in INR - 4,96,54,075 Less: STCG already calculated by assessee - 3,57,37,840 Difference - 1,39,16,235 9. The Assessing Officer shall enhance the income of the assessee by an amount of Rs1,39,16,235/- while computing its total income. The Assessing Officer may examine issue of initiation of penalty

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

92C and section 92CA of the Act.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has done business of providing BPO services to Fortune 500 companies in the transaction processing and customer care services segments. The assessee offers remote support services including customer care and technical support through multiple communication channels, back-end transaction processing, outbound collections

M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

92C and section 92CA of the Act.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has done business of providing BPO services to Fortune 500 companies in the transaction processing and customer care services segments. The assessee offers remote support services including customer care and technical support through multiple communication channels, back-end transaction processing, outbound collections

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

capital, transportation, level of the market, i.e. retail or wholesale and so forth. The Rules and the analytical steps. 71. Sub-Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gains, which cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee in any manner. The taxability thereof in the hands of the assessee is not in consonance with the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) & Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. More so when, there is no iota of evidence that any funds belonged to and/or pertained to the assessee

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

capital gain. In Response ld DRP held that as there was no time left it was not possible and therefore they rejected the objection of the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs. 2 57,31,000. 16. Consequently the learned AO passed assessment order u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C of The Income Tax Act dated 31/10/2018 determining

TECHNIP ITALY S.P.A,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] M/S Technip Italy S.P.A Vs. The D.C.I.T C/O Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu International Taxation India Llp, 22Nd Floor Circle, Noida Dlf Epitome, Building No. 5 Tower A, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurugram Haryana Pan : Aabct 2189 H [Appellant] [Respondent]

gains is required to be computed on the basis of full value of consideration received or accruing on transfer of the asset. The ld. counsel for the assessee further pointed out that the Courts have unanimously and unambiguously held that the expression “full value of consideration” used in section 48 of the Act refers to the actual consideration received

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

capital investment made by the Appellant should be evaluated using Transactional Net Margin method ("TNMM") as the most appropriate method rather than independently benchmarking the outstanding receivables of the Appellant by considering State Bank of India Prime Lending Rate ("SBI PLR") for comparability which does not amount to the application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUPM

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

capital investment made by the Appellant should be evaluated using Transactional Net Margin method ("TNMM") as the most appropriate method rather than independently benchmarking the outstanding receivables of the Appellant by considering State Bank of India Prime Lending Rate ("SBI PLR") for comparability which does not amount to the application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUPM

RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal, Impugning The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereafter ‘Ao’) Making The Transfer Pricing Adjustments (Hereafter ‘Tp Adjustments’) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Hereafter ‘Ay’) 2008-09 As Finalised By The Transfer Pricing Officer 2015:Dhc:6421-Db

92C. The Assessee further claimed that the PLI was liable to be adjusted on account of (i) working capital provided to the Assessee by the AE and (ii) the risks of the business borne by the AE. 5. The AO referred the matter to the TPO. The TPO, by an order dated 19th October, 2011, passed under section 92CA

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

capital loan to vendors. Re: Non-allowance of depreciation on iease-hold rights in land 21. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs. 19,11,47,917 on „leasehold rights‟ in land under section 32(l)(ii) of the Act claimed by the appellant in accordance with the directions

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

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

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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