DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer 1 (2), New Delhi, [learned Transfer Pricing Officer/TPO] to determine the arm’s-length

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)

transfer pricing adjustment in computing the total income of the assessee. Admittedly no addition was made on transfer pricing issues

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

addition to Chapter II of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines relating to commodity transactions [ Extracted from OECD publication Aligning Transfer pricing Outcomes with value creation OECD 2015] as under:- The following paragraphs are added to Chapter II of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines, immediately following paragraph 2.16. 2.16A Subject to the guidance in paragraph 2.2 for selecting the most appropriate transfer

NOBLE RESOURCE & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

addition to Chapter II of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines relating to commodity transactions [ Extracted from OECD publication Aligning Transfer pricing Outcomes with value creation OECD 2015] as under:- The following paragraphs are added to Chapter II of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines, immediately following paragraph 2.16. 2.16A Subject to the guidance in paragraph 2.2 for selecting the most appropriate transfer

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA)PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 15:09:32 Signature Not Verified ITA 155/2022 & 156/2022 Page 11 of 38 regard to the arm's length price, section 92C(1) which sets out the different methods of determining the arm's length price, makes it clear that the transfer

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 15:09:32 Signature Not Verified ITA 155/2022 & 156/2022 Page 11 of 38 regard to the arm's length price, section 92C(1) which sets out the different methods of determining the arm's length price, makes it clear that the transfer

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)

income of the assessee is at Rs. 9 369 8133/– where the addition proposed by the Ld. transfer pricing officer

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)

addition. Consequently, the Ld. assessing officer passed draft order under section 143 (3)/144C (1) of the income tax act, 1961 on 14/03/2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 662570090/- against the returned income of Rs. 319140070/– proposing a transfer pricing

TRANSCEND MT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishitranscend Mt Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Heartland Income Tax, Information & Consultancy Circle-25(2), Services Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi Plot No. 1/1, Arakere, Bannerghata Road, Bangalore Pan: Aabch2275E (Appellant) (Respondent)

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, transfer pricing officer – 1 (2), New Delhi who was acting as Transfer Pricing Officer, as per order

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

additions suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of Advertising/Marketing and Promotion Expenses (‗AMP Expenses‘ for short) was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law as no specific reference was made by the Assessing Officer, having regard to retrospective amendment to Section 92CA of the Income

LI & FUNG INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order dated 25/11/11 of the ITAT Tribunal, Delhi Branch

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

addition of Rs. 33, 59, 69, 186/- made on account of difference in the arm‟s length price of international transactions of buying/sourcing services is not sustainable for the reason that the TPO ITA 306/2012 Page 18 applied the TNMM method contrary to the Transfer Pricing Regulations. Section 92 of the Act stipulates that any income

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

income of ₹ 4,10,27,920/– wherein the following three additions were made i. addition on account of transfer pricing

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

income of ₹ 4,10,27,920/– wherein the following three additions were made i. addition on account of transfer pricing

M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibg Exploration & Production Jcit, India Ltd, International Taxation, Bg House, Dehradun Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Bg Exploration & Production International Taxation, India Ltd, Bg House, Lake Dehradun Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Vs. Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer has already determined the arm‘s length price of the international transactions amounting to Rs. 801326640/- as nil, no further separate addition was made by the Ld. Assessing Officer as it will amount to double disallowance. 11. Further during the year the Assessee has claimed exploration costs relating to contract areas other than on the account

LIUGONG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated above

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

income on 25.09.2010 declaring a loss of Rs.1,54,06,882/-. Since the assessee had undertaken international transactions with its Associated Enterprises, a reference was made by the Assessing Officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), New Delhi u/s. 92CA(1). Vide order dated 13.01.2014, the TPO proposed addition

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

additional income offered by the assessee by way of suo moto adjustment in the computation of income represented a notional figure and not the real income of the assessee and, therefore, it could not be treated as ‘profits and gains derived by an undertaking’. 2.5 The Ld. DRP also upheld the transfer pricing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MENTOR GRAPHICS (NOIDA) PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer adopted a profit level indicator of 24.53% and determined the arm’s length price of the international transactions at `. 10,34,40,177/- as against `. 8,88,66,320/- returned by the respondent/assessee. This resulted in an adjustment of `. 1,45,73,857/- in the income of the assessee being the difference between the arm’s length

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

additions suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of Advertising/Marketing and Promotion 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page 15 of 45 Expenses (AMP Expenses' for short) was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law as no specific reference was made by the Assessing Officer, having regard to retrospective amendment to Section 92CA of the Income