FUJITSU INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Kuldip Singh

TP adjustment on account of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses. However, the AMP adjustments have been made by ld. DRP. 12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the sole question arises for determination in this case is :- “as to whether TPO/DRP have erred in substituting RPM as the MAM with TNMM by rejecting

FUJITSU INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 9(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Kuldip Singh

TP adjustment on account of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses. However, the AMP adjustments have been made by ld. DRP. 12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the sole question arises for determination in this case is :- “as to whether TPO/DRP have erred in substituting RPM as the MAM with TNMM by rejecting

FUJITSU INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Kuldip Singh

TP adjustment on account of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses. However, the AMP adjustments have been made by ld. DRP. 12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the sole question arises for determination in this case is :- “as to whether TPO/DRP have erred in substituting RPM as the MAM with TNMM by rejecting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs. Exxon Mobil Lubricants P. Ltd., Circle-11(1), Ernst & Young Tower, New Delhi. B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. Pan Aabce0207H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit- Dr Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

property transferred or services provided in the international transaction; On analysing the above information it is clearly evident that the only requirement of law for application of CUP method is comparison of controlled transactions with uncontrolled transactions, irrespective of the end 10 which is analysed. Thus, in my opinion the appellant has met all the condition for application

PANASONIC INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,GURGAON vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshpanasonic India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Neac, 12Th Floor, Ambience New Delhi Corporate Office, Tower-2, Ambience Island, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcp9391B

TP documentation, it is respectfully submitted that even for a Company whose functional analysis is similar to the one stated by the Ld. TPO, RPM is the most appropriate method to benchmark the international transaction of purchase of traded goods. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment pronounced by the Hon‟ble Tribunal in the case of Horiba

AITHENT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TP study submitted by the Appellant. 5. The Ld. TPO has erred in facts and circumstances of the case in rejecting the fresh comparable search process, submitted by the Appellant, in a summary manner. 6. The Ld. TPO has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in rejecting the following comparables selected by the Appellant: i. Melstar Information Technologies

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

DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

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

House, Circle 10(1), Room Qutab Institutional Area, No.406, CR Building, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACD4746K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Pardasani, CA Department By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 02.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final order

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

property rights in the work done by it in the development of software. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies (P) Ltd. (2013) 219 Taxmann 26 (Del) considered the giantness of Infosys Ltd., in terms of risk profile, nature of services, number of employees, ownership of branded products and brand related profits, etc. in comparison

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

methods and subterfuges and that the Assessee could not seek to take shelter behind a draft agreement not recognised by law. 25. Mr. Singh submitted that there was no answer to the Revenue‟s contention that the residual value of the plant and machinery after termination of the lease would be negligible and this when seen in light

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

methods and subterfuges and that the Assessee could not seek to take shelter behind a draft agreement not recognised by law. 25. Mr. Singh submitted that there was no answer to the Revenue‟s contention that the residual value of the plant and machinery after termination of the lease would be negligible and this when seen in light

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

methods and subterfuges and that the Assessee could not seek to take shelter behind a draft agreement not recognised by law. 25. Mr. Singh submitted that there was no answer to the Revenue‟s contention that the residual value of the plant and machinery after termination of the lease would be negligible and this when seen in light

JUBILANT GENERICS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), G.B. NAGAR

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

method and\ncomputation of ALP or not. Thereafter, after giving assessee an opportunity\nof being heard, determine the arm's-length price of the international\ntransaction of trading segment of finished goods of the appellant assessee.\nFor trading of raw material and API, similar exercise of determining the ALP\nshould be done separately taking AE as tested party. In case

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine the arm‘s length price in the manner as may be prescribed. Rule 10C prescribes the manner for determining the most appropriate method. Rule 10C reads:- 2015:DHC:2485-DB ITA 16/2014 & connected matters Page 54 of 142 ―10C. (1) For the purposes

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

house research and development facility to perform such activity and there is no need for making payment separately. Ground No. 8 to 8.10 for AY 2011-12 (Assessee‟s appeal) Ground No. 6 to 6.7 for AY 2012-13 (Assessee‟s appeal) 9.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Both the parties before

M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

house research and development facility to perform such activity and there is no need for making payment separately. Ground No. 8 to 8.10 for AY 2011-12 (Assessee‟s appeal) Ground No. 6 to 6.7 for AY 2012-13 (Assessee‟s appeal) 9.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Both the parties before

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

house research and development facility to perform such activity and there is no need for making payment separately. Ground No. 8 to 8.10 for AY 2011-12 (Assessee‟s appeal) Ground No. 6 to 6.7 for AY 2012-13 (Assessee‟s appeal) 9.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Both the parties before

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

house research and development facility to perform such activity and there is no need for making payment separately. Ground No. 8 to 8.10 for AY 2011-12 (Assessee‟s appeal) Ground No. 6 to 6.7 for AY 2012-13 (Assessee‟s appeal) 9.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Both the parties before