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, 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 or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number

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

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

pricing of a product is a very subjective exercise and is true value, as received by the receiver, can differ from that received by others in the market place. Thus, CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along the following dimensions: (i) Quality of the product or service; (ii) Contractual terms (example, scope and terms of warranties provided, sale

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

pricing of a product is a very subjective exercise and is true value, as received by the receiver, can differ from that received by others in the market place. Thus, CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along the following dimensions: (i) Quality of the product or service; (ii) Contractual terms (example, scope and terms of warranties provided, sale

M/S TRL RICELAND PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S TILDA RICELAND P.LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 92D, "shall be supported by authentic documents, which may include the following (i.e. documents specified therein)". The logic employed by the Transfer Pricing Officer is that since databases compiled by private entities is not included in rule 10 D(3), such databases cannot be relied upon by the assessee. This logic is clearly fallacious inasmuch as an item

TRL RICELAND PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S TILDA RICELAND P.LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 92D, "shall be supported by authentic documents, which may include the following (i.e. documents specified therein)". The logic employed by the Transfer Pricing Officer is that since databases compiled by private entities is not included in rule 10 D(3), such databases cannot be relied upon by the assessee. This logic is clearly fallacious inasmuch as an item

SH. EVALUESERVE.COM PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishievalueserve.Com Private Vs. Ito, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi Pan: Aaace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 92E of the income tax act the assessee is required to obtain report from an independent accountant. Therefore that particular report, wherein the under capacity utilization was not made assessee is not entitled to claim it. For this proposition he also relied on the decision of coordinate bench in case of a tent technologies private limited versus DCIT

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

132 of the Act was conducted on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy group.  Thereafter, a notice under section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.11.2013.  The assessing officer made reference to the Transfer Pricing

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

132 of the Act was conducted on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy group.  Thereafter, a notice under section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.11.2013.  The assessing officer made reference to the Transfer Pricing

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

132 of the Act was conducted on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy group.  Thereafter, a notice under section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.11.2013.  The assessing officer made reference to the Transfer Pricing

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Transfer Pricing Documentation within the time-frame mentioned in Rule 10D(4) of the Rules. 3. The Ld. TPO has erred in law and on facts by summarily disregarding the approach followed by the Assessee for benchmarking international transaction pertaining to receipt of ,! Management services without assigning any cogent reasons. In this regard, the Ld. TPO has artificially created separate

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Transfer Pricing Documentation within the time-frame mentioned in Rule 10D(4) of the Rules. 3. The Ld. TPO has erred in law and on facts by summarily disregarding the approach followed by the Assessee for benchmarking international transaction pertaining to receipt of ,! Management services without assigning any cogent reasons. In this regard, the Ld. TPO has artificially created separate

M/S STERIA NDIA LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,764,007 370 filed by the assessee on 29/11/2012 is assessed at ₹ 1,515,053,700/–. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal.- “1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under section 144C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”) at an income

STERIA (INDIA) LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,764,007 370 filed by the assessee on 29/11/2012 is assessed at ₹ 1,515,053,700/–. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal.- “1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under section 144C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”) at an income

STERIA INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAQL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,764,007 370 filed by the assessee on 29/11/2012 is assessed at ₹ 1,515,053,700/–. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal.- “1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under section 144C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”) at an income

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

transferred to various units including the units eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC of the act based upon the sales ratio of all manufacturing units. 4. During assessment year 2005 – 06 to 2011 – 12 assessment orders were passed under the provisions of Section 153A/143 (3) of the act based upon search and seizure operations carried out under the provisions

DASSAULT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

132/- was proposed. The draft assessment order was challenged before the Dispute Resolution Panel, who passed direction on 24.11.2014 wherein the DRP referred back the matter to the TPO. The ld. Transfer Pricing Officer repeated the same adjustment and thereafter an assessment order was passed determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 12,60,36,810/-. 2. The assessee

ETT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIAN EXPRESS MULTIMEDIA LTD),NEW DELHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL-II, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14

transfer pricing were applicable which has not been scrutinized by the Assessing Officer. 5. In response to the show cause notice assessee filed detailed submissions and documents placed on record before Assessing Officer on various dates, which is running into almost 200 pages, the copy of which has been placed in the paper book from pages 4 to 201 before