COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANKITECH PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

13. The Special Bench held that the intention behind this provision is to tax dividend in the hands of the shareholders. 14. The Bombay High Court while confirming the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench in the case of Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. made the analysis this provision in the following manner: ―8. Clause (e) of section 2

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

2 (47)(v) of the Act which defines “transfer” inclusively for the purpose of levying capital gains, would be 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 25 of 40 applicable and capital gains would have been declared by the APIL but in view of APIL’s reply, the assessing officer concluded that possession of the land

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

transfer pricing officer of Rs. 22048880/– was confirmed by the learned dispute resolution panel.. 41. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 4304/Del/2010 the Assessment Year 2006-07:- “The addition amounting to INR 2,20,48,880 undertaken by The Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), New Delhi (“the Ld. AO") vide final

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 exercise is to show the existence of an international transaction. The next step is to determine the price

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 exercise is to show the existence of an international transaction. The next step is to determine the price

JAN KALYAN SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

2)(e) of the Act. Likewise, shareholding of Sanjeev Aggarwal HUF cannot be said shareholding of Sanjeev Aggarwal to invoke section 13(3)(e) of the Act. Similarly, shareholding of the company, called by the name of Shramika Buildcon (P). Ltd. in which Sanjeev Aggarwal is the director cannot be taken as a shareholding of Sanjeev Aggarwal. It is submitted

(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

2) of 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

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

2. Service liability Disclosed in transfer pricing report 3. Capacity utilization risk Disclosed in transfer pricing report ITA 306/2012 Page 8 4. Foreign exchange risk Disclosed in transfer pricing report 5. Credit & collection risk Disclosed in transfer pricing report 6. Scheduling risk Not disclosed in transfer pricing report but actually borne by assessee. 7. Government & institutional risk Not disclosed

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 Meneta Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. and by applying the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (2

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

2) of the Act, and was processed under Section 143(1). Since the assessee had entered into international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under Section 92CA(3) of the Act for determination of the arm’s length price (“ALP”) of the transactions. The TPO by an order recommended an increase in the taxable

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

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

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

2. First, we take up the appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10. Assessee‟s appeal is against Order of The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, circle – 13 (1), New Delhi (The Learned Assessing Officer) passed on 26/12/2013 u/s 143 (3) read with section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act (The Act) in pursuance of direction of The Learned Dispute

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

2. First, we take up the appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10. Assessee‟s appeal is against Order of The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, circle – 13 (1), New Delhi (The Learned Assessing Officer) passed on 26/12/2013 u/s 143 (3) read with section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act (The Act) in pursuance of direction of The Learned Dispute