SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TP studies found TNMM to be the most appropriate method for determination of the ALP and this method was also accepted in the preceding years. However, the TPO had rejected the same and made the ALP adjustment without reference to any particular method. He contended that the Tribunal also fell in error in making an adjustment without reference

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH MASAHIRO MARUYANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TP studies found TNMM to be the most appropriate method for determination of the ALP and this method was also accepted in the preceding years. However, the TPO had rejected the same and made the ALP adjustment without reference to any particular method. He contended that the Tribunal also fell in error in making an adjustment without reference

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. THR MASAHIRO MARUYANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TP studies found TNMM to be the most appropriate method for determination of the ALP and this method was also accepted in the preceding years. However, the TPO had rejected the same and made the ALP adjustment without reference to any particular method. He contended that the Tribunal also fell in error in making an adjustment without reference

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TP studies found TNMM to be the most appropriate method for determination of the ALP and this method was also accepted in the preceding years. However, the TPO had rejected the same and made the ALP adjustment without reference to any particular method. He contended that the Tribunal also fell in error in making an adjustment without reference

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

method becomes less reliable substitute for arm's length dealings if not all significant characteristics of the uncontrolled transactions are comparable. Therefore, it would be ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013 & 6337/Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 and 2008-09 Jindal Steel Limited Vs ACIT Cen Circle 4(1) , New Delhi appreciated that, if significant differences, CUP method will not produce

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

method becomes less reliable substitute for arm's length dealings if not all significant characteristics of the uncontrolled transactions are comparable. Therefore, it would be ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013 & 6337/Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 and 2008-09 Jindal Steel Limited Vs ACIT Cen Circle 4(1) , New Delhi appreciated that, if significant differences, CUP method will not produce

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

TP provisions of other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The requirement under our law is to compute the income from an international transaction between two AEs having regard to its ALP and the same is required to be strictly adhered to as prescribed. This contention is, therefore, repelled.‖ With have duly perused the findings

RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal, Impugning The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereafter ‘Ao’) Making The Transfer Pricing Adjustments (Hereafter ‘Tp Adjustments’) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Hereafter ‘Ay’) 2008-09 As Finalised By The Transfer Pricing Officer 2015:Dhc:6421-Db

TP Adjustment at Rs. 5,92,07,428/-. The AO also made certain additions on account of excess deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 8. The Assessee appealed against the final assessment order dated 9th October, 2012, inter alia, on the ground that eClerx and Vishal could not be considered

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

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

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

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

M/S BMW INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12] Bmw India Private Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Dcit 7Th Floor, Tower-B, Building Circle-1(1) No. 8, Dlf Cyber City, Phase Gurgaon Ii, Gurgaon Pan:Aabcb7140C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv Shri Divyanshu Agarwal, Adv Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

Method proceeds on the assumption that functions, assets and risk being broadly similar and once suitable adjustments have been made, all things get taken into account and stand reconciled when computing the net profit margin. Once the comparables pass the functional analysis test and adjustments have been made, then the profit margin as declared when matches with the comparables would

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. 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

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