GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

TP], “ The assessee has exported the\nsame glass to both AE & non AE and hence internal comparables are\navailable. The TNMM does not provide an appropriate method since on\nan entity wide basis the assessee's aggregate net profit may be within\nindustry range but chances of under invoicing cannot be ruled out\nbecause it is difficult to determine

GUJRAT GUARDIAN LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

TP], “ The assessee has exported the\nsame glass to both AE & non AE and hence internal comparables are\navailable. The TNMM does not provide an appropriate method since on\nan entity wide basis the assessee's aggregate net profit may be within\nindustry range but chances of under invoicing cannot be ruled out\nbecause it is difficult to determine

GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

TP], “ The assessee has exported the\nsame glass to both AE & non AE and hence internal comparables are\navailable. The TNMM does not provide an appropriate method since on\nan entity wide basis the assessee's aggregate net profit may be within\nindustry range but chances of under invoicing cannot be ruled out\nbecause it is difficult to determine

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

TP], “ The assessee has exported the\nsame glass to both AE & non AE and hence internal comparables are\navailable. The TNMM does not provide an appropriate method since on\nan entity wide basis the assessee's aggregate net profit may be within\nindustry range but chances of under invoicing cannot be ruled out\nbecause it is difficult to determine

SHREE CHANDI MAA MAHAKALI PRACHIN MANDIR SIDH PEETH SAMITI,SONIPAT vs. CPC, BANGLORE

TP], “ The assessee has exported the\nsame glass to both AE & non AE and hence internal comparables are\navailable. The TNMM does not provide an appropriate method since on\nan entity wide basis the assessee's aggregate net profit may be within\nindustry range but chances of under invoicing cannot be ruled out\nbecause it is difficult to determine

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJRAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

TP], “ The assessee has exported the\nsame glass to both AE & non AE and hence internal comparables are\navailable. The TNMM does not provide an appropriate method since on\nan entity wide basis the assessee's aggregate net profit may be within\nindustry range but chances of under invoicing cannot be ruled out\nbecause it is difficult to determine

M/S GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

TP], “ The assessee has exported the same glass to both AE & non AE and hence internal comparables are available. The TNMM does not provide an appropriate method since on an entity wide basis the assessee's aggregate net profit may be within industry range but chances of under invoicing cannot be ruled out because it is difficult to determine

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GUJRAT GUARDIAN LTD.,, NEW DELHI

TP], “ The assessee has exported the\nsame glass to both AE & non AE and hence internal comparables are\navailable. The TNMM does not provide an appropriate method since on\nan entity wide basis the assessee's aggregate net profit may be within\nindustry range but chances of under invoicing cannot be ruled out\nbecause it is difficult to determine

GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

TP], “ The assessee has exported the same glass to both AE & non AE and hence internal comparables are available. The TNMM does not provide an appropriate method since on an entity wide basis the assessee's aggregate net profit may be within industry range but chances of under invoicing cannot be ruled out because it is difficult to determine

COMPAREX INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

method without bringing on record any comparable uncontrolled transaction. Therefore, the revenue has violated section 92C of the Act 4 read with Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules. The TP order dated 27 July 2021 ought to be quashed. 6. On the facts and in law, the Ld. TPO exceeded its jurisdiction by applying the cost benefit analysis

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

TP study) with SBI prime lending rate + 300 basis points and determined an arm’s length interest rate of 14.88%. Vide his order dated 08.01.2014 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act the Ld. TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs. 809,277/- (i.e. 13,56,086 – 546809) to be made by the Ld. AO being the difference between

ORACLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Method". • Partial force of attraction is operable and is applicable 3.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the quantum attributed by AO to the alleged PE at Rs 4.96 crores 4. That on facts and in law the reassessment orders passed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) are void ab-initio

ORACLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Method". • Partial force of attraction is operable and is applicable 3.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the quantum attributed by AO to the alleged PE at Rs 4.96 crores 4. That on facts and in law the reassessment orders passed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) are void ab-initio

ORACLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Method". • Partial force of attraction is operable and is applicable 3.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the quantum attributed by AO to the alleged PE at Rs 4.96 crores 4. That on facts and in law the reassessment orders passed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) are void ab-initio

ORACLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Method". • Partial force of attraction is operable and is applicable 3.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the quantum attributed by AO to the alleged PE at Rs 4.96 crores 4. That on facts and in law the reassessment orders passed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) are void ab-initio

ORACLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals in :

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Method". • Partial force of attraction is operable and is applicable 3.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the quantum attributed by AO to the alleged PE at Rs 4.96 crores 4. That on facts and in law the reassessment orders passed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) are void ab-initio

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

TP adjustment of Rs.23,857/– as under: Date Wei Uncont Count date fob Com Par ght rolled ry Valu pari fob Av. Av. Diffe ty party E (IN Rs.) son Val Rat E Rate rence UE (IN (IN IN (IN RS/ rs/ amou Rs.) MT) mt) NT NICE 08.03. 4 1552 3880 Palm JAMAIC

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

TP adjustment In Rs. Value of Gross Sales 16,386,808,123 AMP/Sales of Comparables 3.35% Amount that represents bright line 548,958,072 Expenditure on AMP by assessee 1,157,215,159 Expenditure in excess of bright line 608,257,087 Mark-up at 15% 91,238,563 Reimbursement that assessee should have received 699,495,650 Reimbursement actually