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

10. The Revenue has not brought on record any material to assail the aforesaid finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as regards the absence of any international transaction.” 15. In order to appreciate the submissions which were addressed by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to extract the provisions of Section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBC WORLD INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

22. The learned departmental representative referred the paragraph number 5 of the order of the learned transfer-pricing officer wherein this issue was discussed. He submitted that the learned transfer pricing officer has held that the agreement entered between the assessee as well as the associated , it is apparent that assessee did not have any independent business interest in India

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANKITECH PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

22)(e) of the Act, which reads as under: ―Explanation 3 – For the purposes of this Clause,-‖ (a) ―concern‖ means a Hindu undivided family, or a firm or an associate of persons or a body of individuals or a company; (b) a person shall be deemed to have a substantial interest in a concern, other than a company

NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishintt Data Global Delivery Vs. Dcit, Services Ltd, Circle-13(1), No. 17, South End Road, New Delhi Bangalore Pan: Aabck7777J (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment also during the course of assessment proceedings. Consequently, the returned income of the assessee of INR 30 170 320720/– was assessed at INR 70 21138145/– wide order under section 143 (3) of the income tax act wide order dated 28/3/2013. 4. The order of the learned AO was challenged before the learned CIT – A. He passed

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances? 4. If answer to question Nos.2 and 3 is in favour

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

The appeal is allowed

section 92C on the basis of such material or informaction or document available with him. After the Transfer Pricing Officer determines the arm’s length price, it is incumbent upon him to send a copy of the order to the assessing officer and to the assessee. In the present case what has happened is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

10. LFIL‟s counsel argued that the 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

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)

22 of its direction held that since the transfer pricing officer has held that since cost of Page 14 of 55 steam is already considered while generating power and therefore the resultant cost of production of steam is Rs Nil and therefore no markup is to be added for transferring the same to the non- exempt unit. Accordingly, the learned

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

10, 2015 Final Reports, wherein there is an 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

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

10, 2015 Final Reports, wherein there is an 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

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)

section 92B of the income tax act or not , if yes, at what value at the cost of goods supplied or the sales value, after granting necessary and adequate opportunity to the assessee of hearing. In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is set aside to the file of the Ld. transfer pricing officer

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

10) and 80IB(13) of the Act provide powers to the AO to interfere with the pricing or costing of certain transactions in certain cases in order to determine the correct quantum of deduction permissible. 2014:DHC:2764-DB ITA 475/2012 Page 15 21. The Finance Act, 2001, recognized that international transactions between associated enterprises may not be subject

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

Section I4A.” 15. Now, we first take up the transfer pricing issue. The first ground of appeal is against action of the lower authorities disregarding and ignoring comparable uncontrolled price submitted for international transactions pertaining to purchase of machinery of Rs.40,55,59,818/-. 18 ITA No.1482/Del./2015 16. The brief facts of this issue are that for the purpose

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

22,16,476/- incurred by the appellant for obtaining licenses for use of accounting software were capital in nature without appreciating that acquisition of same is merely enhancement and up gradation of accounting software already in use. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO to himself determine Arms Length Price

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

22,16,476/- incurred by the appellant for obtaining licenses for use of accounting software were capital in nature without appreciating that acquisition of same is merely enhancement and up gradation of accounting software already in use. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO to himself determine Arms Length Price

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)

section 92CA of the Income Tax Act of Rs. 8018048/– . Assessee objected to the comparables before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, however, the contention of the Assessee was B G Exploration & Production India Limited V DCIT ITA No 1170/Del/2015 DCIT V B G Exploration & Production India Limited ITA No 1581/Del/2015 AY 2010-11 rejected holding that the Ld. Transfer Pricing

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)

section 10 A of income tax act was decided. He submitted that Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in 361 ITR 85 (Delhi) in Li & Fung India private limited versus CIT has held that even in case of TNMM strict criteria is of independent enterprise, carrying out a comparable transaction, with caveat that this will only be a guide. Indeed, emphasis

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)

22. As per the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010, when applying a cost plus, resale price or transactional net margin method, it is necessary to choose the party to the transaction for which a financial indicator (mark-up on costs, gross margin, or net profit indicator) is tested. The choice of the tested party should be consistent with the functional