MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

transfer pricing analysis and quantification of adjustments. The provisions of section 80IA(10) itself is a nonstarter in the absence of arrangement. We thus see no merit in the plea raised on behalf of the Revenue that by filing such additional evidences, the assessee is seeking to make out a new case of benchmarking from TNMM to CUP method which

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

35. The assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal in its cross objection stating that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax (The Transfer Pricing Officer) is invalid as it was raised in assessment year 2002 – 03 in the cross objection filed by the assessee. We have already dealt with the above cross objection in deciding

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)

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 an order

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

(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

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)

Section 92CA of the act. 06. As stated, that assessee mostly had Specified Domestic Transactions [SDT]. Assessee has shown transfer of power and steam from eligible unit to non-eligible unit during the year. 07. Assessee has shown the transfer of the power as per its transfer pricing study report from eligible unit to non-eligible unit as Under :- Transferor

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

transfer pricing officer, The learned AO passed order in terms of section 144C (1) of the act on 07/03/2014 determining total loss of INR 359068286 against the returned income of the assessee of loss of INR 2602874. From the above, He reduced the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to INR 36747130. Consequently the total loss was determined

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

transfer pricing officer, The learned AO passed order in terms of section 144C (1) of the act on 07/03/2014 determining total loss of INR 359068286 against the returned income of the assessee of loss of INR 2602874. From the above, He reduced the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to INR 36747130. Consequently the total loss was determined

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

10. Commission Income: In case Liugong directly sell machines or parts to customers or its sub-distributors/dealers, LIPL is eligible to get the commission which amounts to the difference of the transfer price (as per agreement) and dealer's price. ASSETS EMPLOYED Any Business requires assets (tangible or intangible) without which it cannot carry out its activities. An understanding

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)

transferred only to boost profitability and cash flow of appellant. (d) Valuation Report of INMAC is not reliable 10. That on the facts and in law to the extent the orders passed by both AO and CIT(A) are prejudicial to the interest of the assesse the same are bad in law and void ab-initio. 3. The revenue

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)

transferred only to boost profitability and cash flow of appellant. (d) Valuation Report of INMAC is not reliable 10. That on the facts and in law to the extent the orders passed by both AO and CIT(A) are prejudicial to the interest of the assesse the same are bad in law and void ab-initio. 3. The revenue

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

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

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)

35. E-Clerx Services ltd having a margin of 56.82% has been included by the ld Transfer Pricing Officer stating that it is functionally comparable as its functions are similar to the functions of the assessee under the ITES segment. It is further held by him that this comparable does not own any significant intangibles. The assessee contested this comparable

SH. EVALUESERVE.COM PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishievalueserve.Com Private Vs. Ito, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi Pan: Aaace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent)

10 A of the income tax act by Rs. 9508868/–. The transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 162401920/– was also retained. Therefore, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. assessing officer assessee is in appeal before us. 15. Ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is general in nature, no arguments are advanced before us, and therefore this ground

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

section 10(2)(xv) of the Act (Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law." 8.4 Considering the material facts like the absence of an agreement, arrangement or understanding between the appellant and its associated enterprise for sharing the advertisement, 35 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India

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

section 10(2)(xv) of the Act (Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law." 8.4 Considering the material facts like the absence of an agreement, arrangement or understanding between the appellant and its associated enterprise for sharing the advertisement, 35 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India

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

section 10(2)(xv) of the Act (Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law." 8.4 Considering the material facts like the absence of an agreement, arrangement or understanding between the appellant and its associated enterprise for sharing the advertisement, 35 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India