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

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

section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act (The Act) in pursuance of direction of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel –II, New Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Delhi (the learned DRP ) disposing of the objections filed by the assessee in the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer

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

section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act (The Act) in pursuance of direction of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel –II, New Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Delhi (the learned DRP ) disposing of the objections filed by the assessee in the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer

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)

transfer pricing guidelines on this issue. The AO also noted that no services could be said to be received wherein associated enterprises for reasons of its affiliation alone has a credit rating higher than it would if it were unaffiliated but an intragroup services would usually exists when the higher credit rating was due to a guarantee by another group

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)

transfer pricing guidelines on this issue. The AO also noted that no services could be said to be received wherein associated enterprises for reasons of its affiliation alone has a credit rating higher than it would if it were unaffiliated but an intragroup services would usually exists when the higher credit rating was due to a guarantee by another group

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

transfer pricing analysis as contemplated under Section 92; to the contrary, it accepted the assessee’s stated return (absent any benchmarking) as the true and correct value under an implicit (and incorrect) understanding of Section 92(3). 30. As regards the costs incurred by CWHK, a further issue arises. Whilst the costs incurred by Mr. Braganza

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 benchmarking that each transaction has to be benchmarked separately unless rendered impossible for their inseparability. 1.4 The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that each transaction was very clearly distinguished by the Assessee itself in terms of not only its nature but also the amount paid for them and therefore, the conclusion

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

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure of Rs.114.89 crores. Briefly stated, the relevant facts in this regard are that the assessee M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Company whose share holding is as under:- M Bird Travels Private Limited Mrs. Radha Bhatia and Family (100% ownership with Mrs. Radha (all Indian nationals) Bhatia and Family

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure of Rs.114.89 crores. Briefly stated, the relevant facts in this regard are that the assessee M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Company whose share holding is as under:- M Bird Travels Private Limited Mrs. Radha Bhatia and Family (100% ownership with Mrs. Radha (all Indian nationals) Bhatia and Family

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure of Rs.114.89 crores. Briefly stated, the relevant facts in this regard are that the assessee M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Company whose share holding is as under:- M Bird Travels Private Limited Mrs. Radha Bhatia and Family (100% ownership with Mrs. Radha (all Indian nationals) Bhatia and Family

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

transfer pricing regulations mandate. Bright Line test cannot be applied to work out non-routine AMP expenses for benchmarking [Para 194 (x)]; The AMP expenses incurred by the Page 140 assessee already benchmarked by AO for good and sufficient applying TNMM so separate benchmarking reasons can de-bundle interconnected not required transactions, is segregated distribution, marketing or AMP transactions when

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 adjustment of Rs. 34,94,445 by comparing prices of international transaction of export with prices of export of steel product to unrelated party after making adjustment for variation in composition of Nickel. 3.1 That the assessing officer / TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the prices of international transaction of export of steel

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 adjustment of Rs. 34,94,445 by comparing prices of international transaction of export with prices of export of steel product to unrelated party after making adjustment for variation in composition of Nickel. 3.1 That the assessing officer / TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the prices of international transaction of export of steel

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

transfer pricing regulations mandate. Bright Line test cannot be applied to work out non-routine AMP expenses for benchmarking [Para 194 (x)]; The AMP expenses incurred by the Page 140 assessee already benchmarked by AO for good and sufficient applying TNMM so separate benchmarking reasons can de-bundle interconnected not required transactions, is segregated distribution, marketing or AMP transactions when

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)

Pricing Officer in absence of any „international transaction‟ as assessee has not claimed this expenses as deduction and it has not impacted income, profit, loss, or assets of the assessee. As assessee follows cash system of accounting, hence, the year in which the assessee actually receives the income or pays the expenditure the same is recorded in the books

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 40(a)(i) are directed to be deleted. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal stand allowed. In view of this decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of assessee, the advance ruling relied on by the ld. DR does not help the revenue, as the said ruling is binding on that applicant and not upon the Tribunal u/s. 245S

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)

100% export oriented unit and eligible to claim deduction under section 10 A of the income tax act. It is deriving income from its associated concern and has entered into international transactions. 4. Assessee filed its return of income on 29/11/2006 showing nil income and claiming deduction under section 10 A of the income tax of Rs. 6.76 crores leaving