COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

13 of 20 the notice of the Transfer Pricing Officer during the course of the proceedings before him, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply as if such other international transaction is an international transaction referred to him under sub-section (1).] (3) On the date specified in the notice under sub-section (2), or as soon thereafter

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

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)

C. No. 57(9)/Registration/GZB/2004-05/1660 dated 31.8.2004 issued by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad. A copy of the registration certificate u/s 12AA of the Act is placed at page 1 Paper Book. It is submitted here that on 28.9.2015 appellant had furnished a return of income declaring an income of Rs. 1,14,890/-, which was computed

(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

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

c. whether the interest expenses and exchange loss are to be considered as operating expenses 11. The learned CIT – A held that the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has incorrectly held that third-party expenses have to be included in the cost base of the appellant and appropriately markup. Based on this finding he computed that the direct cost of market

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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

price. Expeditious nature of a remedy is concerned with the quick disposal and abhors unreasonable delays. Yet another facet of effective remedy is in its cohesiveness. 23. In conclusion, we hold that an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections

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) of Section 144C of the Act, the AO is not accorded any discretion in the framing of an order of assessment once directions have

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

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)

C of the act whereby the addition of Rs 2,57,31,000 is made. (Covered by ground number 5) 20. Ground number 1 of the appeal is general in nature, no specific arguments were raised thereon, but various additions are contested by the separate grounds. Ground number 7 is with respect to the initiation of the penalty proceedings

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

C) The Tribunal by its order dated 22.04.2015 set aside the findings rendered by the first two authorities and held that transfer pricing adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was contrary to the mandatory instructions issued by CBDT 2 in its Instruction No.3/2003 dated 20.05.2003. While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal observed as under:- “16.1 After considering the entire judicial

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

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), the most appropriate method, referred to in Section 92C(1), "shall be applied, for determination of arm's length price, in the manner prescribed". Therefore, as long as the method covered by rule 10AB, which is duly covered by Section 92C(1) satisfies the test of being the 'most appropriate method', it can be applied to a fact situation

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), the most appropriate method, referred to in Section 92C(1), "shall be applied, for determination of arm's length price, in the manner prescribed". Therefore, as long as the method covered by rule 10AB, which is duly covered by Section 92C(1) satisfies the test of being the 'most appropriate method', it can be applied to a fact situation

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

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