(Now known as Sony India Limited)

6. Whether, the payment made as royalty to the foreign associated enterprise is comparable with what other domestic entities pay to independent foreign parties in a similar situation? 7. Where the Indian associated enterprise has got a manufacturing licence from the foreign associated enterprise, is it also using any technology or technical input or technical know-how acquired from

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

Transfer Pricing Officer noted that assessee has given a bank guarantee of ₹ 10827.5 lakhs on behalf of its associated enterprise and it has charged ₹ 149.21 lakhs for providing the corporate guarantee to its associated enterprise. The assessee benchmarks the above transaction applying the CUP method. The learned TPO for verification of the applicable rate sought information under section 133 (6

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

Transfer Pricing Officer noted that assessee has given a bank guarantee of ₹ 10827.5 lakhs on behalf of its associated enterprise and it has charged ₹ 149.21 lakhs for providing the corporate guarantee to its associated enterprise. The assessee benchmarks the above transaction applying the CUP method. The learned TPO for verification of the applicable rate sought information under section 133 (6

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer has stated that despite giving ample opportunity to the Assessee the 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 requisite details were not submitted, and further the notices sent to the JV partners under section 133 (6

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 92F(ii) which defines arm's length price to mean a price "which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions". Since the reference is to "price" and to "uncontrolled conditions" it implicitly brings into play the bright line test. In other words, it emphasises that where

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

Transfer Pricing Documentation within the time-frame mentioned in Rule 10D(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 8 2.6 By misconstruing the risk profile of the Appellant and not allowing risk adjustments. 2.7 By using data called pursuant to issuance of notice under Section 133(6

MUFG BANK,LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 133(6) has been obtained for determining the ALP of the impugned transaction, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice; and (d) Not issuing the show cause notice proposing transfer pricing

KAPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No. 15, Circle-5(1), Okhla Industrial Estate-Iii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 (Pan: Aaics9919F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee : S/Shri Nageswar Rao, Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv. Shri Parth, Adv. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.03.2019

Transfer pricing study, rejection of all the comparables, selection of new set of comparables, use of information obtained under section 133(6

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

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

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

section 92(1) of the Act, which seeks to benchmark income / expense arising from an international transaction, having regard to the arm’s length price. The income / expense must arise qua an international transaction, meaning thereby that the (i) income has accrued to the Indian tax payer under an international transaction entered into with an associated enterprise; or (ii) expense

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

6 D of the OECD Guidelines deals with 'Marketing activities undertaken by enterprises not owning trademarks or trade names'. It contains a discussion on promotion of trade marks by distributors of branded goods. It acknowledges the difficulties in determining the extent to which the expenses have contributed to the success of a product

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

6 D of the OECD Guidelines deals with 'Marketing activities undertaken by enterprises not owning trademarks or trade names'. It contains a discussion on promotion of trade marks by distributors of branded goods. It acknowledges the difficulties in determining the extent to which the expenses have contributed to the success of a product

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. FIS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTION INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and both Cos are allowed as above

Bench: SHRISUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

section 133(6) of the Act, recasted the fianacials for 12 months. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel that such exercise was not justified as the financials of Megasoftcould not be reliably recasted. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) had righly held Megasoft as non-suitable comparable. 7. The Ld. Counsel further contended that there was no merit

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FIS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and both Cos are allowed as above

Bench: SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

section 133(6) of the Act, recasted the fianacials for 12 months. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel that such exercise was not justified as the financials of Megasoftcould not be reliably recasted. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) had righly held Megasoft as non-suitable comparable. 7. The Ld. Counsel further contended that there was no merit

AMERICAN EXPRESS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiamerican Express (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Circle-2(2), Office Block, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan:Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. American Express (India) Pvt. Circle-2(2), Ltd, New Delhi Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer and further 133(6) notices were issued and it was found that this company is engaged in the medical transcription services and satisfies all the filters applied by the TPO. The assessee objected that this company is engaged in sales of software. The ld DRP rejected the contention of the assessee also. 38. Before

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

Section 68 of the Act, based on the following allegations: 5 a) M/s Click Cab Technology LLP lacks the creditworthiness to make such a big investment on the ground that its statement of income & expenditure and ITR showed Nil Income and also due to non-compliance of notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. The AO failed to appreciate

M/S. SIS LIVE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishisis Live Acit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Central Circle-17, Room No. Vs. Golf View Corporate Tower B, 356, E-2, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT, 369 ITR 516, High Court of Bombay 7. Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd. v UOI, 368 ITR 1, High Court of Bombay At this juncture it is relevant to mention that now it is a settled position of law, that the onus is on the revenue authorities to demonstrate that the transaction

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

6 Powerica Ltd 12.48% Diesel and gas gensets 7 Shakti Pumps Ltd 12.28% Submersible and booster pumps 8 Southern Agro Engines 4.62% Engines and pumpsets Pvt Ltd 9 SudhirGensets Ltd 16.80% Gensets 10 Supernova Engineers 4.53% Diesel and gas gensets Ltd Average PLI 7.60% Appellant 10.67% Since the operating profit margin of the comparables at 7.60% was less than