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)

houses, the main source of revenue is advertisement charges. The advertisers approach classified agents or accredited advertising agencies to advertise. The agents/agencies upon receipt of advertisement requirement procure the airtime from the media companies at a discount. Advertisers while making payment to accredited agencies duly deduct tax as required under law under section 194C of the Act on the amount

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

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

house property. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for Ay 2014-15 and similar grounds are also for AY 2015-16:- ITA. No. 8229/Del/2018 (Assessment year: 2014-15) : “1. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing- 2(2)(2) („Ld. TPO‟), draft assessment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

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 stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishikaplan India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 226, Tribhuvan Complex, Ward-14(2), Ishwar Nagar, Friends Colony New Delhi (West),New Delhi Pan: Aaics9919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 226, Tribhuvan Complex, Special Range-5, Ishwar Nagar, Friends Colony New Delhi (West),New Delhi Pan: Aaics9919F (Appellant) (Respondent)

92C of the Act. 3. The learned TPO/AO/DRP have erred in: a. Not accepting the use of multiple year data, as adopted by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing („TP‟) documentation; and b. Determining the arm‟s length margins / prices using data pertaining only to financial Year („FY‟) 2010-11 which was not available to the Appellant at the time

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

property associated with the sale (vii) Foreign currency receipt (viii) Alternatives realistically available with the buyer and the seller. 81. In OECD Transfer Pricing guidelines at II-3 paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 it is states as follows: "2.8 It may be difficult to find a transaction between independent enterprises that is similar enough to a controlled transacting such that

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

property associated with the sale (vii) Foreign currency receipt (viii) Alternatives realistically available with the buyer and the seller. 81. In OECD Transfer Pricing guidelines at II-3 paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 it is states as follows: "2.8 It may be difficult to find a transaction between independent enterprises that is similar enough to a controlled transacting such that

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 on determination of the arm's length price paid to another associated enterprise from which tax has been deducted [or was deductible] under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB, the income of the other associated enterprise shall not be recomputed by reason of such determination of arm's length price in the case of the first mentioned enterprise. The manner

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

House Circle 2(2) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACA 0364 L [Appellant] [Respondent] Assessee by : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Revenue by : Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 29.10.2018 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

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

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

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

92C of the Act. 3. The learned TPO / AO / DRP have erred in: a. Not accepting the use of multiple year data, as adopted by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing (‘TP’) documentation; and b. Determining the arm’s length margins / prices using data pertaining only to financial Year (‘FY’) 2009-10 which was not available to the Appellant

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 03, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

house property number to income from 155-160 business and profession 8 Deletion of Decided in Decided in Para number Dismissed addition on favour of favour of the 13 of the order account of the assesse assesse as per notional as per paragraph rent/additional paragraph number 20 of annual letting number the order vale in respect

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

3) of the Act provides that – "Any term used but not defined in this Act or in the agreement referred to in sub-section (1) shall, unless the context otherwise requires, and is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Actor the agreement. have the same meaning as assigned to it in the notification issued by the Central Government

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

3 of the show cause reply submitted in this office on 04.10.2016, assessee himself admits that one among the major functions of the assessee is the implementation of global direct selling/ marketing policy. Assessee in its submissions has admitted stated many times that policy formulation and brand promotion is the work done by AEs. Since, it is clear from that

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

3 of the show cause reply submitted in this office on 04.10.2016, assessee himself admits that one among the major functions of the assessee is the implementation of global direct selling/ marketing policy. Assessee in its submissions has admitted stated many times that policy formulation and brand promotion is the work done by AEs. Since, it is clear from that

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 92C(3) of the Act have been satisfied before disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself. Part II - Corporate tax matters 4 15. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP was not justified and have erred by taxing gross composite rental income

EDAG ENGINEERING & DESIGN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

property rights were held by their parent/group companies, the Assessee was in effect manufacturing for its related enterprise and, therefore, payment of any royalty on sales would be unreasonable. The TPO made observations to the effect that the payment of royalty had, in fact, inflated the operating costs and was 'Villain of the piece". 3.4 The Assessing Officer passed