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

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

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BIO RAD LABORATORIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 92C(3) are being satisfied for him to be able to reject the method adopted by the appellant. 2. not ensuring that the companies selected by him as comparable are actually comparable using all the benchmarks specified in the above mentioned rules. 3. By not confronting the appellant with the data available with him to reject their method

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

3) (a) of section 92C provides that where the AO, during the course of any proceedings for assessment is of the opinion that “the price charged or paid in an international transaction” has not been determined as per ALP, then, he may proceed to determine the ALP in relation to the said international transaction. This provision, again, brings out that

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

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92C(2) of the Act. 3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining addition of Rs. 70,95,787 on account of the alleged difference in the arm‘s length price of international transactions of interest charged on loan given to the associated enterprise, PT Jindal Indonesia by applying the interest rate

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92C(2) of the Act. 3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining addition of Rs. 70,95,787 on account of the alleged difference in the arm‘s length price of international transactions of interest charged on loan given to the associated enterprise, PT Jindal Indonesia by applying the interest rate

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CORNELL OVERSEAS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 28.02.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi.

Section 32(1)(iia) (being additional depreciation available on achieving substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity). One of the arguments put forward by AO for denial of additional depreciation is that perusal of Schedule 19 to the balance sheet containing significant accounting policies and notes to accounts shows that quantitative and other information regarding goods manufactured, licensed

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

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

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

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

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

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

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

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

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

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

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

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

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