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

M/S UNITECH LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

price of Rs. 179 per share did not even represent the fair market value of the shares sold by the appellant company since issue of fresh share capital by eight wireless companies was in no manner comparable with transfer of existing shares by the appellant company. 2.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked that sale

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

142 and incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden is on the assessed to select and justify the method adopted and the arm’s length price declared under sub-section (3) to section 92C, the Assessing Officer can proceed to determine the arm’s length price in accordance with

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

142 and incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden is on the assessed to select and justify the method adopted and the arm’s length price declared under sub-section (3) to section 92C, the Assessing Officer can proceed to determine the arm’s length price in accordance with

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

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

142 and incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden is on the assessed to select and justify the method adopted and the arm’s length price declared under sub-section (3) to section 92C, the Assessing Officer can proceed to determine the arm’s length price in accordance with

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 92CA (1) of the Act and referred the case to the transfer pricing

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 92CA (1) of the Act and referred the case to the transfer pricing

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

142 incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden is on the assessed to select and justify the method adopted and the arm’s length price declared under sub-section (3) to section 92C, the Assessing Officer can proceed to determine the arm’s length price in accordance with Section

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

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

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

142 incurred for own business as a service para 147, page 111 to AE is not justified The burden is on the assessed to select and justify the method adopted and the arm’s length price declared under sub-section (3) to section 92C, the Assessing Officer can proceed to determine the arm’s length price in accordance with Section

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)

142(1), the assessee initially filed its return on Page 2 of 19 30.9.2011 declaring a loss of Rs. 6,01,46,503/-, which was revised to a loss of Rs. 45,06,99,539/- on 28.9.2012. The assessee did not report any international transaction nor filed Form No. 3CEB along with these returns of income. During the course

M/S. UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

prices fixed under law/Rules, but this by itself will not be the accounts complex. Similarly, an Assessing Officer is required to scrutinize the entries and verify them, but this does not require services of a special auditor or a Chartered Accountant to undertake the said exercise. Section 142(2A) is not a provision by which the Assessing Officer delegates /his

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

prices fixed under law/Rules, but this by itself will not be the accounts complex. Similarly, an Assessing Officer is required to scrutinize the entries and verify them, but this does not require services of a special auditor or a Chartered Accountant to undertake the said exercise. Section 142(2A) is not a provision by which the Assessing Officer delegates /his

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

Transfer Pricing Officer is received by him.] (6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) [, (1-A)] and (2) shall apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of [sub-sections (3), (5) and (5-A)], be completed— (i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing

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

Transfer Pricing Officer is received by him.] (6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) [, (1-A)] and (2) shall apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of [sub-sections (3), (5) and (5-A)], be completed— (i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing

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

Transfer Pricing Officer is received by him.] (6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) [, (1-A)] and (2) shall apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of [sub-sections (3), (5) and (5-A)], be completed— (i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing

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

price of the international transaction of IT services was determined by selecting 14 comparable companies whose average profit level indicator was 16.89%. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 63. The first contention of the assessee is that there is an incorrect computation of operating profit margin of the assessee as foreign exchange income amounting