NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing documentation and economic analysis contained therein, passed an order dated 20.01.2014 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act directing therein an addition of Rs. 1,09,82,272/- to be made on account of difference of operating profit determined as per Arm‟s Length Price, i.e. by taking arm‟s length margin on international transactions relating to purchase

MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 14 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Circle-16(2) 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Vatika Business Park, New Delhi Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 92CA to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer to determine arm‟s length price of the international transaction of the assessee with its associated enterprises. 4. According to the transfer pricing documents maintained by assessee, the international transaction of provision of research and information services as well as of provision of IT support services were benchmarked using the transactional

M/S ATOTECH INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee with respect to the above issue is allowed with above direction

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Atotech India Ltd, Acit, 66, Km Stone, Nh-8, Gurgaon Circle, Vs. Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm0338G (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate reasons for such initiation.” 3. Assessee, incorporated in March 1996 to meet the requirements for plating chemicals, is wholly owned subsidiary of company incorporated in the Netherlands that is ATotech B V . Earlier the assessee was operating in India, as Max Attoech Ltd, a joint

MITSUI PRIME ADVANCED COMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

transfer pricing adjustment, if the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the authority that the price charged or paid in such a transaction was in accordance with the provisions of section 92C and such price was computed as per the manner prescribed under that section in good faith and due diligence. This divulges that penalty u/s 271

M/S. JRK AUTO PARTS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) on the following additions made in assessment order and more so when framing the such assessment order u/s 143(3)/144C dated 28-02-2011 is also contrary to law and facts. • On account of expenses of capital nature-Rs.5,00,000/- • On account of transfer price

M/S. SIS LIVE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishisis Live Acit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Central Circle-17, Room No. Vs. Golf View Corporate Tower B, 356, E-2, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271G for failure to furnish information or documents u/s 92D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 6 of 19 13.4 Without prejudice to the above finding in this case, since, the Firm is following Cash System of accounting, no payment i.r.o the international Transactions w.r.t. SIS OB and Fatpipe as discussed above, shall be allowed

A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PVT. LTD. (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, (India Branch Office), Circle 1(1), 6Th Floor, Tower D, New Delhi. Vs Global Business Park, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aadca1436G) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Ms Vrinda Tulsiyan, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms Saweta Nakra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

transfer pricing adjustment made by the appellant. B.2 Set off of brought forward loss. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing set off of brought forward loss of Rs. 5,389,388 as claimed

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition of Rs. 81.59 crores made on account of sales tax incentive/subsidy holding the same to be merely notional and/or revenue in nature, as against the same being claimed as capital receipt by the appellant. 6.1 The relevant portion of the show cause notice u/s 271

BT E- SERV (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 99/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Bt E-Serv (India) Pvt. Ltd, Ito, 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Ward-5(2), Vs. Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcb2533M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 24. the learned AO has erred in levying interest under sections 234B and 234D of the Act while completely disregarding the provisions of the Act and the judicial precedence.” 5. Though the assessee has raised 24 grounds in this appeal divided into first 13 grounds on Transfer Pricing issues

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. HTC INDIA PVT LTD, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

transfer pricing adjustment, if the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the authority that the price charged or paid in such a transaction was in accordance with the provisions of section 92C and such price was computed as per the manner prescribed under that section in good faith and due diligence. This divulges that penalty u/s 271

TRL RICELAND PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S TILDA RICELAND P.LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Transfer Pricing Officer at ₹ 2,670,216,194 making the proportionate adjustment u/s 92CA(3) of the Act of ₹ 193,657,087/- which was confirmed by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. This is the only dispute in this appeal. 3. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 441/Del/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13:- “Impugned Assessment Order

M/S TRL RICELAND PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S TILDA RICELAND P.LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Transfer Pricing Officer at ₹ 2,670,216,194 making the proportionate adjustment u/s 92CA(3) of the Act of ₹ 193,657,087/- which was confirmed by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. This is the only dispute in this appeal. 3. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 441/Del/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13:- “Impugned Assessment Order

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)

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) ( C ) of the act. The above ground of appeal is premature and therefore same is dismissed. 47. In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 in ITA number 1025/del/2016 is partly allowed. AY 2012-13 48. Both the parties submitted that facts in the present case are similar to the facts

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer form, copy of share certificate. The assessee also filed copy of bank statement reflecting the payment receipts through banking channel of Rs. 17,80,261/-. The assessee claimed profit on sale of shares of Rs. 17,80,261/- as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. 4. During assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO confronted the assessee with

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)

u/s 40(1)(ia) paid to Intelsat? Please note that we have already given the details of transmission and uplinking charges to your honour vide our submission dated 11th March 2013. We reiterate that the provisions of TDS/withholding taxes were fully complied with. The payments were made after obtaining the requisite certificates from the Chartered Accountant as defined

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)

u/s 40(1)(ia) paid to Intelsat? Please note that we have already given the details of transmission and uplinking charges to your honour vide our submission dated 11th March 2013. We reiterate that the provisions of TDS/withholding taxes were fully complied with. The payments were made after obtaining the requisite certificates from the Chartered Accountant as defined

WM INDIA TECHNICAL AND CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiwm India Technical & Vs. Dcit, Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd, Circle-27(2), E-20, First & Second Floor, Hauz New Delhi Khas, New Delhi Pan: Aaacw7112N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is premature, hence dismissed. 5. Ground number 2 to 6 are related to the transfer pricing

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Ground No. 1 and 2 is general 4. 5. Ground No. 3 to 3.8 - Transfer pricing issue w.r.t. to payment of trademark fee The appellant is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobile tyres, tubes and flaps in the brand name of ‘Goodyear’. The appellant