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

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2008-09

92C(4), we are more inclined to go with the view of the Special Bench. 26.5. It is, therefore, held that the eligibility of the assessee to deduction u/s 10A of the Act does not operate as a bar for determining 47 the ALP of international transaction undertaken by it and further the enhancement of income due to such transfer

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

section 92C of the Act. 3.20 That the assessing officer/TPO erred on facts and in law in failing to appreciate that the appellant has long-term rights to use the trademark/ licensed intangibles and reaps all the benefits of the said AMP expenses and is thus the economic owner of any related marketing intangible. 3.21 That the assessing officer/TPO erred

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

92C(3) of the Act for rejecting the documentation of the Appellant with respect to the international transaction of allocation of management support and IT charges. 3.6 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in benchmarking management support and IT 3 charges using Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method and determining

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

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 of the arm’s length

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

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 of the arm’s length

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

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 of the arm’s length

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

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 of the arm’s length

M/S. GAP INTERNATIONAL SOURCING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

92C of the Act with reference to such derived figure of 32% as a mark up on its operating cost, since the said figure of 32%, being a mark up Page 2 of 23 I.T.A .No.-6742/Del/2013 on operating cost, did not exist in the AOs order passed under section 143(3) of the Act read with section 144C

TRL RICELAND PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S TILDA RICELAND P.LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri. K. N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

92C(2) of the Act. The Rules in this respect read as under :- “Rule 10 C (1) of the rules defines the most appropriate method. The most appropriate method shall be the method, which is best, suited' to the facts and circumstances of the each particular international transaction, and which provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TIMEX WATCHES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Depreciation 165.77 Interest 87.31 Total Expenditure Less: Unabsorbed Overheads due to under 778.56 Utilization 100.00 Total Operating Expenditure (b) 678.56 Net Profit (a) – (b) (42.80) NPM (6.73) Accordingly, the assessee has suffered a loss of Rs. 4.28 crores during the year after adjusting for non-recurring items, excess capacity, deferred advertising expenses. As per transfer pricing report of para

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:

section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case. 10. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts and in law by disregarding judicial pronouncements in India in undertaking the TP adjustment. 11. The Ld. AO / Ld. DRP has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by disallowing differential depreciation

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:

section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case. 10. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts and in law by disregarding judicial pronouncements in India in undertaking the TP adjustment. 11. The Ld. AO / Ld. DRP has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by disallowing differential depreciation

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation, allowed the same as Rs. 3,67,47,130/-. Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.” 8. Ground

NOBLE RESOURCE & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation, allowed the same as Rs. 3,67,47,130/-. Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.” 8. Ground

M/S. HI-LEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2005-06

section 92C stipulates that :`The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods…..’. The nitty-gritty of the above discussion is that addition by way of transfer pricing adjustment is mandated only in respect of transactions between two or more AEs. A fortiorari, no income arising from

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. HI- LEX INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2005-06

section 92C stipulates that :`The arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods…..’. The nitty-gritty of the above discussion is that addition by way of transfer pricing adjustment is mandated only in respect of transactions between two or more AEs. A fortiorari, no income arising from

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

depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27,68,039 on the ground that the same related to investment activity of the appellant. 4.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the alternate claim of the appellant for deduction

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

depreciation. 4. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of portfolio management expenditure of Rs. 27,68,039 on the ground that the same related to investment activity of the appellant. 4.1 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the alternate claim of the appellant for deduction