GYANENDRA BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

transfer of the capital asset but it is not chargeable under section 45 for want of cost of acquisition. However, from that, one cannot bring such a receipt under Section 10(3) because section 10(3) refers to types of income which do not from part of total income. In other words, a receipt has to be income before

GIRISH BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

transfer of the capital asset but it is not chargeable under section 45 for want of cost of acquisition. However, from that, one cannot bring such a receipt under Section 10(3) because section 10(3) refers to types of income which do not from part of total income. In other words, a receipt has to be income before

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

3. Capacity utilization risk Disclosed in transfer pricing report ITA 306/2012 Page 8 4. Foreign exchange risk Disclosed in transfer pricing report 5. Credit & collection risk Disclosed in transfer pricing report 6. Scheduling risk Not disclosed in transfer pricing report but actually borne by assessee. 7. Government & institutional risk Not disclosed in transfer pricing report but actually borne by assessee

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

section 154 of the income tax act before the learned transfer pricing officer wherein the above adjustment was reduced to INR 35271454/–. 10. Aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –XX, New Delhi. The learned CIT – A noted that the following 3

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)

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. ANNEXURE I Register of record to be maintained by Transfer Pricing Officer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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)

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. ANNEXURE I Register of record to be maintained by Transfer Pricing Officer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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

3 Provision of Marketing Support services 10782778 TNMM 4 Re-imbursement of Expenses 19067033 No 5 Recovery of expenses 721078 No bench marking 4. The Tribunal records that although the TPO did not interfere with the benchmarking in respect of transactions listed at S. No. 1, 4 and 5, it came to the conclusion that the assessee had incurred

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

3 Provision of Marketing Support services 10782778 TNMM 4 Re-imbursement of Expenses 19067033 No 5 Recovery of expenses 721078 No bench marking 4. The Tribunal records that although the TPO did not interfere with the benchmarking in respect of transactions listed at S. No. 1, 4 and 5, it came to the conclusion that the assessee had incurred

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

transfer pricing study submitted by it stated: “4.6 Reimbursement of expenses to AE’s During FY 2005-06, the AE’s of the assessee incurred certain expenses on behalf of the assessee. We understand that these expenses were incurred in connection with travel, boarding & lodging etc. of employees. We also understand that these expenses have been charged back based

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent

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

The appeal is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C makes it clear that where more than one price is determined by employing the most appropriate method, the arm’s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices. There is no dispute that the prices which are to be considered while computing

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

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)

Section 92C (3) of the Act. 4. The learned TPO / AO / DRP have erred in: a. Not accepting the use of multiple year data, as adopted by the appellant in its Transfer Pricing (TP1) documentation; and pg. 3 BT e- serve ( India ) private Limited V ITO ITA No 565 /Del/2015 A Y 2010-11 ITA No 99/del/2016

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)

10 A of the income tax act. The learned assessing officer further held that on the interest income also the deduction cannot be allowed. There was certain 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

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

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