M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 131 of the Act. The following table depicts the details of statements taken and relied upon by revenue- Name Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92B of the Act, (―eligible assessee‘) the assessing officer is required to make a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (―TPO‖) to determine the arm‘s length price (―ALP‖) in respect of such international transactions. In case of such an eligible assessee, (as also defined in sub- section 15(b) of section 144C of the Act), the assessing officer

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92B of the Act, (―eligible assessee‘) the assessing officer is required to make a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (―TPO‖) to determine the arm‘s length price (―ALP‖) in respect of such international transactions. In case of such an eligible assessee, (as also defined in sub- section 15(b) of section 144C of the Act), the assessing officer

VEDANTA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

92B(1) of the Act and hence outside purview of transfer pricing provisions. 10.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in not appreciating that as prescribed in 5 Vedanta Ltd. Production Sharing Contract/Petroleum Resource Agreement / Joint Operating Agreement, partners of Unincorporated Joint Venture (UJV) are permissible to pay only for actual

HITACHI HIGH- TECHNOLOGIES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

147 of the Act for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. 5. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessing officer had, inter-alia, alleged that LO was engaged in executing/negotiating contracts for the appellant in India and was not merely undertaking preparatory and auxiliary activities and, therefore, the LO was Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) of the appellant in India

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)

92B and rule 10B redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the 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

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

92B of the Act of the expression “receivables'' does not mean that de hors the context every item of “receivables'' appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be characterised as an international transaction. There may be a delay in collection of monies for supplies made, even beyond the agreed limit

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Reassessment or revision, thus the issues on the principles of consistency is covered in favour of the assessee. iii. He submitted that in the instant case, the contribution of capital by way of investment in shares for acquiring a controlling stake of 74% in the Aviva life insurance Co Ltd is a “capital asset” of the appellant and the appellant

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

147 368 2,414.421 7 In fact in the case of J4 Black coil, it would be noted that the appellant has sold 45205.790 MT to the associated enterprise, whereas, the total quantity of J4 Black Coil sold to unrelated third parties is merely 2234.400 MT, constituting only 4.7% of the total sales. Accordingly, in a situation where the manufacturing

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

147 368 2,414.421 7 In fact in the case of J4 Black coil, it would be noted that the appellant has sold 45205.790 MT to the associated enterprise, whereas, the total quantity of J4 Black Coil sold to unrelated third parties is merely 2234.400 MT, constituting only 4.7% of the total sales. Accordingly, in a situation where the manufacturing