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)

3 shall exercise such powers and perform such function of Transfer Pricing Officers as mentioned in Section 92CA for the purpose of sections 92C and 92D of the Act, in respect of persons or classes of persons mentioned in column 5:" 5. It was submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate that the expression "…..the Assessing Officer considers

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

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

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

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:

3) in the status of AOP, determining the total income at Rs. 1,20,77,763/- while making disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) at Rs.1,18,92,163/-. The AO had formed a view that the assessee JV had suppressed its profit by making excessive payment to TPPL. To work out the amount to be disallowed

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:

3) in the status of AOP, determining the total income at Rs. 1,20,77,763/- while making disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) at Rs.1,18,92,163/-. The AO had formed a view that the assessee JV had suppressed its profit by making excessive payment to TPPL. To work out the amount to be disallowed

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

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

(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

S.N. EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, , PANIPAT

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

92D to maintain and produce documentation as called for by the TPO. Therefore, the assessee's Instant case is a fit case for levy of penalty uls 271G for failure to furnish Information or document in respect of segmental accounts relating to transactions made with AEs and non AEs for determination of arms length price of international transactions as required

S.N. EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, , PANIPAT

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

92D to maintain and produce documentation as called for by the TPO. Therefore, the assessee's Instant case is a fit case for levy of penalty uls 271G for failure to furnish Information or document in respect of segmental accounts relating to transactions made with AEs and non AEs for determination of arms length price of international transactions as required

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

COMPASS INDIA SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

3)", "Section 144C(13)", "Section 144B", "Section 92C", "Section 92D", "Rule 10B", "Rule 10D", "Section 43B", "Section 270A" ], "issues": "The core issue revolves around the transfer pricing adjustment made by the revenue authorities on account of intra-group services (IT software licenses and IT enabled services) provided by the assessee's AEs. The revenue disallowed

COMPASS INDIA SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

Section 92D of\nthe Act read with Rule 100 of the Income-tax Rules 1962 ('the Rules'). The same\nshould be accepted.\nRejected the comparability analysis conducted by the Assessee and conducted a fresh\nsearch based on the recent cut-off date. The Assessee had conducted the\ncomparability analysis on the basis of contemporaneous data and same should be\naccepted

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