(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

7,00,05,000 as on 31.3.2001 and since the assessee company claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act and there was substantial change in the share holding pattern of the assessee company during F.Y. 2000-01 relevant to assessment year under consideration, the AO asked the assessee to explain as to why deduction under section 10A

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

7,00,05,000 as on 31.3.2001 and since the assessee company claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act and there was substantial change in the share holding pattern of the assessee company during F.Y. 2000-01 relevant to assessment year under consideration, the AO asked the assessee to explain as to why deduction under section 10A

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

7) SCC 1. Revenue‟s contentions 21. The learned counsel for the Revenue primarily relied upon the various orders of the AO, TPO and ITAT (Delhi Bench). His submission was that LFIL was involved in performing all of the crucial functions of the transaction. Moreover, all significant risks were borne by it, and unique intangibles developed by it over

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

7 reimbursement of costs to CWHK for services rendered by Mr. Ashpreet Choudhary. 9. In respect of this issue, the following question of law arises for the Court’s consideration: “Is the Tribunal correct in holding that benchmarking was not necessary in respect of the cost reimbursement reported by the assessee that was later subject to disallowance

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

7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where the assessee, [before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139] , furnishes to the [Assessing] Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section shall

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

7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where the assessee, [before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139] , furnishes to the [Assessing] Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section shall

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

7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where the assessee, [before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139] , furnishes to the [Assessing] Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section shall

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

7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where the assessee, [before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139] , furnishes to the [Assessing] Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section shall

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

7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where the assessee, [before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139] , furnishes to the [Assessing] Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section shall

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

7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where the assessee, [before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139] , furnishes to the [Assessing] Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section shall

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

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)

Transfer Pricing (TP1) documentation; and pg. 3 BT e- serve ( India ) private Limited V ITO ITA No 565 /Del/2015 A Y 2010-11 ITA No 99/del/2016 A Y 2011-12 b. Determining the arm's length margins / prices using data pertaining only to financial Year ('FY') 2009-10 which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Study to determine "ordinary profit" for the purpose of section 10A(7) read with section 80IA(10) of the Act. 2.4. Based

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Study to determine "ordinary profit" for the purpose of section 10A(7) read with section 80IA(10) of the Act. 2.4. Based

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

10A of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. DRP while upholding the disallowance had held that proviso to section 92C(4) is applicable because it has ordered certain ITA 2623/Del/2015 Assessment year 2010-11 adjustment to the ALP of the main ITES transaction in Para 7 of its directions. It was submitted that subsequently no adjustment

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

7 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) (b) Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.8,98,683/- on account of alleged transaction for notional interest on receivables. (c) Disallowance u/s 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