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

section 92CB which provides for the "safe harbour" rules for determination of the arm's length price, can be applied only if the transfer pricing adjustment involves substitution of the transaction price with the arm's length price. Rules 10B, 10C and the new rule 10AB only deal with the determination of the arm's length price. Thus

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

section 92CA is to be given by the Assessing Officer. (iv) Maintenance of database: It is to be ensured by the DIT (Transfer Pricing) that the reference received from the Assessing Officer is dealt with expeditiously so as to leave the Assessing Officer with sufficient time to offer an opportunity of being heard of the taxpayer before computing the income

(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

14. We find that while these were the general reasons cited by the Transfer Pricing Officer for rejecting the comparables suggested by the respondent/assessee, the Transfer Pricing Officer had not indicated as to how each of the comparables suggested by the respondent/assessee did not fulfil the criteria which was adopted by him. The Transfer Pricing Officer suggested that the following

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

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

transfer pricing documentation maintained in terms of section 92D of the Act read with rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, determined the arm's length price of the “international transaction” of the provision of buying services applying the TNMM, by comparing operating profit margin of LFIL with that of the comparable companies, as under: This exercise has not been

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)

transfer pricing Officer vide order dated 14 September 2011 accepted the ALP of the all international transactions undertaken by the appellant. He further stated that the CIT – A has also erred in upholding the addition on account of the alleged transaction of issue of corporate guarantee without appreciating that there was no corporate guarantee given by the assessee

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)

transfer pricing Officer vide order dated 14 September 2011 accepted the ALP of the all international transactions undertaken by the appellant. He further stated that the CIT – A has also erred in upholding the addition on account of the alleged transaction of issue of corporate guarantee without appreciating that there was no corporate guarantee given by the assessee

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

Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.” 8. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are general in nature and in fact, support Ground Nos. 3 to 6 of the grounds of appeal, therefore they do not deserve any adjudication specifically, and hence they are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 3 is with respect to the rejection

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

Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.” 8. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are general in nature and in fact, support Ground Nos. 3 to 6 of the grounds of appeal, therefore they do not deserve any adjudication specifically, and hence they are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 3 is with respect to the rejection

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)

14 of 15 officer to the Ld. transfer pricing officer for the determination of the arm’s length price of the international transactions. The Ld. transfer pricing officer wide its order dated 24/09/2009 under section

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

14. Against this, the assessee is in appeal on the following grounds : Transfer Pricing - Purchase of Machinery, Heavy Earthmoving Machines and Spare Parts – Rs.9,56,91,501 1. On the facts and in law, the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP')/ Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO)/ Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) erred in violating provisions of Section

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

transfer pricing provisions is to ensure that income is not shifted outside India through wrongly valued transactions with associated enterprises in foreign jurisdictions. In this case, quite to the contrary, it is argued that the minimum possible amount – actual cost incurred – is 2014:DHC:2764-DB ITA 475/2012 Page 9 paid by the assessee to the AEs, placing the case

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)

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 with each of the international transaction as under:- i) with respect to support services provided by the Assessee to its associated enterprise M/s BG India energy solutions Private Limited amounting to Rs. 71025995/- which

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 Officer and Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel. 14. In rejoinder, Ld. senior advocate submitted that it is immaterial whether assessee is classified as KPO or BPO even though coordinate bench has already decided this issue based on order of Hon‟ble high court in assessee‟s own case for earlier year wherein claim of eligibility of deduction under section

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

Transfer Pricing Officer it upheld the same. 26. With respect to the corporate tax issues the learned Dispute Resolution Panel upheld the disallowance under section 14