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

Transfer Pricing Officer proceed to benchmark the portion of such AMP spend that the Indian entity should be compensated for ? 75. As an analogy, and for no other purpose, in the context of a domestic transaction involving two or more related parties, reference may be made to section 40A(2)(a) under which certain types of expenditure incurred

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)

deduction u/s 80 IA of the income tax act with respect to the transfer price of the power transferred by the assessee

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

transfer pricing guidelines from Multi-national Enterprises and Tax Administrations, paragraphs 6.4 and 6.36 to 6.39, the TPO observed that when a distributor bears the cost of ―extraordinary‖ marketing activities, he should be compensated with return on the intangible created because of such expenditure. Distinction between short-term and long-term relationship was highlighted. He referred to Australian Tax Code

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer and Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel. 14. In rejoinder, Ld. senior advocate submitted that it is immaterial whether assessee is classified as KPO or BPO even though coordinate bench has already decided this issue based on order of Hon‟ble high court in assessee‟s own case for earlier year wherein claim of eligibility of deduction

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 determined the arm‘s length price at rupees Nil , the balance sum of Rs. 11374089/– was disallowed. 9. During the year the Assessee has claimed that the wellhead platforms amounting to Rs. 958938038/– are liable for depreciation / deduction

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

transfer pricing adjustment. The material part of DRP‟s reasoning is as follows: “After going through the functions of the assessee, we find that it has assumed the role of a full risk bearing trader. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that the cost of goods should not be part of the cost base cannot be allowed. The assessee

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

price to mean a price "which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions". Since the reference is to "price" and to "uncontrolled conditions" it implicitly brings into play the bright line test. In other words, it emphasises that where the price is something other than what would

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)

Transfer Pricing (‗TP‘) documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‗Rules‘); not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises (‗AEs‘) 2.2 ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 3 of 134 as the tested party, being the least complex

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

Transfer Pricing Officer noted that assessee has given a bank guarantee of ₹ 10827.5 lakhs on behalf of its associated enterprise and it has charged ₹ 149.21 lakhs for providing the corporate guarantee to its associated enterprise. The assessee benchmarks the above transaction applying the CUP method. The learned TPO for verification of the applicable rate sought information under section

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

Transfer Pricing Officer noted that assessee has given a bank guarantee of ₹ 10827.5 lakhs on behalf of its associated enterprise and it has charged ₹ 149.21 lakhs for providing the corporate guarantee to its associated enterprise. The assessee benchmarks the above transaction applying the CUP method. The learned TPO for verification of the applicable rate sought information under section

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

transfer pricing report provided by the assessee. As regards the payment of the referral fee, the TPO stated that “no adverse inference is drawn”. However, in respect of the reimbursement of costs to the AEs, the TPO disallowed deduction

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)

deduction of the same was claimed by the assesses in its return of income. Since the expense in respect of international transactions was not claimed by the assesses in its return of income, the provisions of section 92 of the Act, dealing with transfer pricing

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 has survived, the deduction u/s 10A of the Act could not be denied on the voluntary transfer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 10. That on facts and in law the AO/DRP erred in charging/upholding levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 11. That on facts and in law, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO/TPO to determine Arm’s Length Price is bad in law and void ab-initio.” 2.2 Thus, in crux

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 10. That on facts and in law the AO/DRP erred in charging/upholding levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 11. That on facts and in law, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO/TPO to determine Arm’s Length Price is bad in law and void ab-initio.” 2.2 Thus, in crux

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

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 10. That on facts and in law the AO/DRP erred in charging/upholding levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 11. That on facts and in law, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO/TPO to determine Arm’s Length Price is bad in law and void ab-initio.” 2.2 Thus, in crux

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)

deduction on account of u/s 10AA of Rs. 29086105/- and addition on account of arms length price u/s 92CA(3) of Rs. 76391345/- was made as per the order of the ld Transfer

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

deduction under Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law." 85. The OECD Transfer Pricing