(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Section 482 to the following effect: ―(a)The US distributor was simply given set transfer price and the development of the US market was at risk and economic cost of the US distributor. (b) The foreign parent indirectly subsidized the development of the US market through a reduced transfer price. (c) The foreign parent provided the distributor with a rebate

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

37. The ground number 2 in the cross objection is related to the transfer pricing issue with respect to the determination of the arm’s-length price of the market support service functions of the assessee which is also connected with the appeal of the learned assessing officer, therefore, same would be dealt with by dealing with the appeal

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

37, and there is no need for further assessment of the ALP under Section 92(3). The relevant portions of Section 92 are extracted below: “Computation of income from international transaction having regard to arm's length price. 92. (1) Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm's length price. Explanation

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

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 was sustained to that extent. iv) With respect to the disallowance of the production cost of Rs. 31678 6095/- under section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act, The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel held that as the Assessee has failed to show the commercial expediency test in the instant case, the disallowance is correctly made

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

37. The learned departmental representative also reiterated the same arguments as were advanced on the identical grounds in appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2009 – 10. 38. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, the orders of the lower authorities, the various submissions made by the assessee before the lower authorities, and chart submitted before us contesting various comparables

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

37. The learned departmental representative also reiterated the same arguments as were advanced on the identical grounds in appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2009 – 10. 38. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, the orders of the lower authorities, the various submissions made by the assessee before the lower authorities, and chart submitted before us contesting various comparables

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)

10 as under:- “26. The Hon’ble ITAT may be pleased to grant the claim of ‘Education Cess’ (@ 3%) amounting to Rs.1.33.41.210/- u/s 37 of the Act paid / payable by the assessee under normal provisions of the Act.” 1. That an amount of Rs.1,33,41,210/- may be pleased to allow u/s 37 of the Act as paid / payable

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

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

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 92F(ii) which defines arm's length 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

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)

Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

37(1) and 92 operated in different domains. (vii) Section 92 was of a much wider amplitude than Section 40A(2) of the Act. While Section 40A (2) restricted the deduction to the extent it is reasonable, Section 92 requires benchmarking of all the international transactions whether they related to the expenses incurred by the Indian entity

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

37(1) and 92 operated in different domains. (vii) Section 92 was of a much wider amplitude than Section 40A(2) of the Act. While Section 40A (2) restricted the deduction to the extent it is reasonable, Section 92 requires benchmarking of all the international transactions whether they related to the expenses incurred by the Indian entity

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

transfer of the capital asset. The court considered the provisions of sections 23(1), 23(1-A) and section 23(2) of the Act as well as section 28 and section 34 of the Act of 1894 and observed that section 23(1- A) was introduced in the 1894 Act to mitigate the hardship caused to the owner

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)

37. The ld DR defended the order of the ld TPO as well as the ld DRP. 38. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities with respect to this comparable. With respect to this comparable coordinate bench in ITA No. 2010/del/2014 for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Ameriprise India

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