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

13. In Bausch and Lomb Eyecare (India) vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax11, the position in law as noticed above came to be reiterated in the following words: - “54. Under sections 92B to 92F, the pre-requisite for commencing the transfer pricing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBC WORLD INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 154 of the income tax act before the learned transfer pricing officer wherein the above adjustment was reduced to INR 35271454/–. 10. Aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –XX, New Delhi. The learned CIT – A noted that the following 3 issues are required for adjudication

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

transfer price has to be determined by the TPO in terms of section 92C. The price has to be determined by any one of the methods stipulated in sub-section (1) of section 92C 13

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

price of the land to APIL and simultaneously obtained possession of the plots. It would appear that one of the conditions of the agreement was that in case the allotment of plots is cancelled later, the assessee will be liable for 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 3 of 40 cancellation charges of 10% of the cost

(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

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

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 144C(1) of the Act made an addition, inter alia, on account of transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 57,65,61,186 on the basis of the order passed by the TPO. The reasoning of the TPO is as follows: ITA 306/2012 Page 5 “5.2.5 The compensation model of the assessee does not include the profit attributable

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 documentation and economic analysis contained therein, passed an order dated 20.01.2014 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act directing therein an addition of Rs. 1,09,82,272/- to be made on account of difference of operating profit determined as per Arm‟s Length Price, i.e. by taking arm‟s length margin on international transactions relating to purchase

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 documentation and economic analysis contained therein, passed an order dated 20.01.2014 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act directing therein an addition of Rs. 1,09,82,272/- to be made on account of difference of operating profit determined as per Arm‟s Length Price, i.e. by taking arm‟s length margin on international transactions relating to purchase

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 92CA of the act. 06. As stated, that assessee mostly had Specified Domestic Transactions [SDT]. Assessee has shown transfer of power and steam from eligible unit to non-eligible unit during the year. 07. Assessee has shown the transfer of the power as per its transfer pricing study report from eligible unit to non-eligible unit as Under :- Transferor

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

transfer prices to recognise lower profit in countries with higher tax rates and vice versa. This can reduce the aggregate tax payable by the multinational groups and increase the after tax returns available for distribution to shareholders. In India, the Act had hitherto not dealt with this problem in a detailed manner. The erstwhile section 92 sought to determine

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

section 92C(1) of the Act provides that ALP in relation to international transactions shall be determined by any of the following methods : (i). Comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP) (ii). Re-sale price method (RPM) (iii). Cost plus method (CPM) (iv). Profit split method (PSM) (v). Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) 11. Out of the above five methods, the assessee

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)

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. ANNEXURE I Register of record to be maintained by Transfer Pricing Officer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

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)

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. ANNEXURE I Register of record to be maintained by Transfer Pricing Officer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

M/S ATOTECH INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee with respect to the above issue is allowed with above direction

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Atotech India Ltd, Acit, 66, Km Stone, Nh-8, Gurgaon Circle, Vs. Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm0338G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92B of the income tax act or not , if yes, at what value at the cost of goods supplied or the sales value, after granting necessary and adequate opportunity to the assessee of hearing. In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is set aside to the file of the Ld. transfer pricing officer

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)

13 Gujarat Gas NA 57,409,887 B G Exploration & Production India Limited V DCIT ITA No 1170/Del/2015 DCIT V B G Exploration & Production India Limited ITA No 1581/Del/2015 AY 2010-11 Company Limited 14 Mahanagr Gas NA 15,069,909 Limited 15 BG India Energy NA 1,130,776 Solutions Private Limited 6. The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer dealt

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)

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation; and b. Determining the arm's length margins / prices using data pertaining only to financial Year ("FY") 2011 -12 which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the Indian TP documentation requirements 6. The learned TPO / AO / DRP have erred in rejecting certain comparable companies selected by the Appellant in respect

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- 2, NEW DELHI vs. HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of Section 92-CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.‖ 17. As is manifest from a reading of sub-section (13