ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act made while calculating Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act by ignoring the fact that clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act, introduced by Finance Act 2006 is applicable to the assessee for the year under consideration ? 5. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act made while calculating Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act by ignoring the fact that clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act, introduced by Finance Act 2006 is applicable to the assessee for the year under consideration ? 5. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify

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

Disallowance of interest decapitalisation [ Ground no 3 of appeal of AO for Ay 2007-08] 30. In appeals of the assessee, Ground number 1 for assessment year 2007 – 08 and ground number 1 and 2 for assessment year 2008 – 09 are challenging the various additions/adjustment made by the learned assessing officer/Transfer Pricing Officer which are also independently challenged

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

Disallowance of interest decapitalisation [ Ground no 3 of appeal of AO for Ay 2007-08] 30. In appeals of the assessee, Ground number 1 for assessment year 2007 – 08 and ground number 1 and 2 for assessment year 2008 – 09 are challenging the various additions/adjustment made by the learned assessing officer/Transfer Pricing Officer which are also independently challenged

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

disallowance by the AO, since the TPO held that ALP in respect of this component was nil?” 10. Impugning the order of the ITAT, learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, argued that – through the entire exercise – no benchmarking of the costs claimed as reimbursement has been conducted. It was argued that the costs paid

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers & Ors.(374 ITR 35) wherein it was held – “dismissing

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers & Ors.(374 ITR 35) wherein it was held – “dismissing

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

disallowance of expenditure but relates to determination of arm‘s length price/cost of an international transaction between the two AEs. It relates to income or receipts, and also expenses and interest but in a different context. Thus, Section 37(1) and Chapter X provisions pertain to different fields. 56. Chapter X of the Act being a specific statutory provision

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.

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm's length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him: Provided that an opportunity shall be given by the Assessing Officer by serving a notice calling upon the assessee

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit(Ltu), Vs. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Circle-1, Ltd, Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, New Delhi Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit(Ltu), 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, Plot Circle-1, No. 10 & 11, Dda District Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, Centre, Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent)

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) as well as fresh search and in particular modifying/ rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant; 5.2 disregarding multiple year/prior years’ data used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year [(i.e. Financial Year (“FY”) 2010-11] data for comparable companies

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit(Ltu), Vs. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Circle-1, Ltd, Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, New Delhi Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit(Ltu), 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-B, Plot Circle-1, No. 10 & 11, Dda District Nbcc Plaza Pusph Vihar, Centre, Jasola, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaace5174C (Appellant) (Respondent)

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) as well as fresh search and in particular modifying/ rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant; 5.2 disregarding multiple year/prior years’ data used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year [(i.e. Financial Year (“FY”) 2010-11] data for comparable companies

ALCATEL-LUCENT INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Alcatel-Lucent India Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Special Range-1, New Delhi Dlf Cyber Greens, 14 & 15Th Floor, Tower C, Phase-Iii, Dlf City, Gurgaon Pan :Aacca8667N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; Ms. Manasvini Bajpai, Adv.; & Shri. Ankul Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

Section 92D of the Act. 7. That on fact of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/ Hon’ble DRP has erred in application of inappropriate filters based on turnover, different financial year end, service income, export sales and employee cost for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 4 8. That on the facts of the case

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

disallowance of Rs.7,10,677/- made by the AO invoking provision of section 14A read with Rule 8D was upheld by the DRP. (e) Addition on account of interest on Income Tax refund u/s 244A– The said addition was also upheld by the DRP. 2.8 The TPO thereafter passed an order dated 29th January, 2015 giving effect to the above

GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Granite Services Dcit International India Private Vs Circle-10(2), Limited, Building No.7A, New Delhi 5Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Sector -25A, Gurgaon-122002 Pan Aaccg3374Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rules); 3.3. arbitrarily rejecting/modifying the filters adopted by the Appellant in the TP study and imposing additional filters for the selection of comparables; 3.4. incorrectly selecting functionally different companies engaged in high-end technical, engineering and consultancy services as comparables and thereby resorting to cherry

MOTOROLA MOBILITY CHENNAI PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Sh. Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12 Motorola Mobility Chennai Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. 12Th Floor, Block D, Dlf Circle-2 Cyber Greens, Dlf Cyber City Gurgaon Gurgaon -122001 Pan No. Aafcp2216D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules; b. not appreciating that payment towards intra group service fees is closely linked to the primary business 3 segments/ functions of the Appellant and erred in analyzing the transaction separately for the determination of arm’s length price; c. inappropriately rejecting TNMM adopted by the Appellant

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

disallowance under section 14A read with Section 8D should not be applied. It was explained by the assessee that it has received gross dividend of Rs.60,718/- and no expenses are incurred as the amount is very small. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and by applying the provisions of 8 ITA.No

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAYPEE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

disallowance under section 14A read with Section 8D should not be applied. It was explained by the assessee that it has received gross dividend of Rs.60,718/- and no expenses are incurred as the amount is very small. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and by applying the provisions of 8 ITA.No

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowing entire amount of royalty paid under 5 Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd. section 37(1) merely based on assumption and surmise is bad in law. 1.15 Ground 15: Without prejudice, the Hon’ble DRP and the Learned AO/TPO have grossly erred in re- computing arm’s length price of the impugned transaction involving payment of royalty