(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

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

transferred by Smt. Prem Lata during the F.Y. 2000-01 relevant to the A.Y. 2001-02 and provisions of Subsection 9 (read with explanation 1) of Section 10A of the IT Act are clearly attracted. Further vide its letter dated 21.2.2004, the assessee company have filed a copy of the opinion of M/s Price

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

transferred by Smt. Prem Lata during the F.Y. 2000-01 relevant to the A.Y. 2001-02 and provisions of Subsection 9 (read with explanation 1) of Section 10A of the IT Act are clearly attracted. Further vide its letter dated 21.2.2004, the assessee company have filed a copy of the opinion of M/s Price

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

transferring income yielding assets to non-residents whilst at the same time retaining the power to benefit from such transactions i.e. the income so generated. Under the original 1961 IT Act, a similar provision was found under Section 92. By Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002, Section 92 was substituted by Sections 92 to 92F, provisions in Chapter

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

transfer prices for goods, facilities and services in order to determine that they conform to the “arm’s length principle”. Not only has section 92 of the Act been completely recast but new sections 92A to 92F have also been introduced to meet the desired objective of ensuring that the local tax base of an assessee is fair. 22. Section

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

10A. He submitted that Section 80IA(8) of the Act had referred to the transfer of goods or services between eligible businesses and other businesses carried on by the Assessee and by virtue of Section 80IA(8) such transfer would be taken at market value irrespective of the prices

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

10A. He submitted that Section 80IA(8) of the Act had referred to the transfer of goods or services between eligible businesses and other businesses carried on by the Assessee and by virtue of Section 80IA(8) such transfer would be taken at market value irrespective of the prices

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

10A. He submitted that Section 80IA(8) of the Act had referred to the transfer of goods or services between eligible businesses and other businesses carried on by the Assessee and by virtue of Section 80IA(8) such transfer would be taken at market value irrespective of the prices

M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II

10A. He submitted that Section 80IA(8) of the Act had referred to the transfer of goods or services between eligible businesses and other businesses carried on by the Assessee and by virtue of Section 80IA(8) such transfer would be taken at market value irrespective of the prices

M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- II

10A. He submitted that Section 80IA(8) of the Act had referred to the transfer of goods or services between eligible businesses and other businesses carried on by the Assessee and by virtue of Section 80IA(8) such transfer would be taken at market value irrespective of the prices

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

10A. He submitted that Section 80IA(8) of the Act had referred to the transfer of goods or services between eligible businesses and other businesses carried on by the Assessee and by virtue of Section 80IA(8) such transfer would be taken at market value irrespective of the prices

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

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 10A(3) of the Act the disallowance of Rs. 101887394/- was made. 32. On the transfer pricing issue the assessee

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

A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PVT. LTD. (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, (India Branch Office), Circle 1(1), 6Th Floor, Tower D, New Delhi. Vs Global Business Park, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aadca1436G) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Ms Vrinda Tulsiyan, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms Saweta Nakra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

section 92C (4) of the Act would not be attracted on the voluntary transfer pricing adjustment made by the assessee and the provisions were to apply only in cases where the adjustments had been made by the TPO/Assessing Officer. It was submitted that since no transfer pricing adjustment has survived, the deduction u/s 10A

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

10A of the Act 2.3 The first issue in dispute arising out of grounds 2 to 6 of appeal pertains to 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

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

10A of the Act 2.3 The first issue in dispute arising out of grounds 2 to 6 of appeal pertains to 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

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

10A of the Act 2.3 The first issue in dispute arising out of grounds 2 to 6 of appeal pertains to 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