PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA)PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

1) thus is explicit that the only manner of effecting a transfer pricing adjustment is to substitute the transaction price with the arm's length price so determined. The second proviso to section 92C(2) provides a "gateway" by stipulating that if the variation between the arm's length price and the transaction price does not exceed the specified percentage

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

10B. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 92C, the arm 's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely:— (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,— (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred

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

section 92C(2) of the Act and Rule 10B of the Rules provide the manner in which such methods should be applied by the assessee, assessing officer, Transfer Pricing Officer, etc. 11. Mr. Porus Kaka, learned senior counsel, while stating that the TNMM was chosen by LFIL as the appropriate method to calculate the arm‟s length, provided the court

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the TPO') adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Prices (CUP) method. In the process, the assessee had presented two sets of prices claiming them to be comparable. One set of transactions relied on by the assessee was supplied by Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the TPO') adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Prices (CUP) method. In the process, the assessee had presented two sets of prices claiming them to be comparable. One set of transactions relied on by the assessee was supplied by Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year

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

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1) thus is explicit that the only manner of effecting a TP adjustment is to substitute the transaction price with the ALP so determined. The second proviso to Section 92C (2) provides a 'gateway' by stipulating that if the variation between the ALP and the transaction price does not exceed the specified percentage, no TP adjustment

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1) thus is explicit that the only manner of effecting a TP adjustment is to substitute the transaction price with the ALP so determined. The second proviso to Section 92C (2) provides a 'gateway' by stipulating that if the variation between the ALP and the transaction price does not exceed the specified percentage, no TP adjustment

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to the Appellant's income. 2. That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/L4. DRP has erred in reducing the eligible deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act') by la 56,13,895/-on the basis of incorrect assumptions, conjectures and in doing so have grossly

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act provides five methods for determination of arm’s length price of an ‘international transaction’. The mandate of the TPO, it is respectfully submitted, is limited to application of any of the five prescribed methods as the most appropriate method. The aforesaid has been clarified by the CBDT in Instruction

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

10B(1) of the Income-tax Rules (―the Rules‖) provides for application of CUP method as follows: ―10B.Determination of arm‘s length price under section 92C. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013

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

10B(1) of the Income-tax Rules (―the Rules‖) provides for application of CUP method as follows: ―10B.Determination of arm‘s length price under section 92C. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013

MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 14 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Circle-16(2) 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Vatika Business Park, New Delhi Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10 A of income tax act was decided. He submitted that Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in 361 ITR 85 (Delhi) in Li & Fung India private limited versus CIT has held that even in case of TNMM strict criteria is of independent enterprise, carrying out a comparable transaction, with caveat that this will only be a guide. Indeed, emphasis

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 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 reasons applying TNMM so separate can de-bundle interconnected benchmarking not required transactions, is segregated distribution, marketing or AMP transactions when