(Now known as Sony India Limited)

4) Where an arm‘s length price is determined by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm‘s length price so determined: Provided that no deduction under section 10A [or section 10AA] or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed

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

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

10A as per pre-amended section. • Without prejudice to the above it was also pleaded that in fact there is no change in the beneficial ownership of shares and it is a matter of record that it was transfer of shares amongst the family member only. • In support of its contention the assessee company also filed a copy of agreement

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

10A as per pre-amended section. • Without prejudice to the above it was also pleaded that in fact there is no change in the beneficial ownership of shares and it is a matter of record that it was transfer of shares amongst the family member only. • In support of its contention the assessee company also filed a copy of agreement

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

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

4) of the Act provides that where an arm’s length price is determined by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm’s length price so determined. However, no deduction under section 10A [or section 10AA] or section

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

4) shall also apply in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years and any subsequent assessment year. (6) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (9) of section 80-I shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the industrial undertaking referred

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

4) shall also apply in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years and any subsequent assessment year. (6) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (9) of section 80-I shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the industrial undertaking referred

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

4) shall also apply in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years and any subsequent assessment year. (6) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (9) of section 80-I shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the industrial undertaking referred

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

4) shall also apply in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years and any subsequent assessment year. (6) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (9) of section 80-I shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the industrial undertaking referred

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

4) shall also apply in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years and any subsequent assessment year. (6) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (9) of section 80-I shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the industrial undertaking referred

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

4) shall also apply in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years and any subsequent assessment year. (6) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (9) of section 80-I shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the industrial undertaking referred

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)

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 b. Determining the arm's length margins / prices using data pertaining only to financial Year ('FY') 2010-11 which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying

EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

transfer pricing adjustment should not be made for the reason that its income is exempt under section 10A and hence there is no motive to divert profit has to be rejected applying the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Aztec Software Technology Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 15 SOT 49/162 Taxman

EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

transfer pricing adjustment should not be made for the reason that its income is exempt under section 10A and hence there is no motive to divert profit has to be rejected applying the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Aztec Software Technology Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 15 SOT 49/162 Taxman

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

4) of section 92CA. (ii) Role of Transfer Pricing Officer: The role of the TPO begins after a reference is received from the Assessing Officer. In terms of section92CA this role is limited to the determination of arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction(s) referred to him by the Assessing Officer - - - - - - The price

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