COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Section 144C of the said Act. 3. The Transfer Pricing Officer had observed that the assessee had incurred more than the normal sales and marketing expenses to build the “Amadeus” brand in India which was owned by Amadeus Spain. According to the Transfer 2011:DHC:6027-DB ITA 938/11 Page 3 of 20 Pricing Officer, the assessee should have been

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

5) of section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall. . ." there is no requirement of delving in a further in-depth analysis of the clear provision..‖ xxxx xxxx xxxx 20. Section 144C of the Act is a self contained provision which carves out a separate class of assessees, i.e., "eligible assessee". Section 144C of the Act was inserted

SHAHNAZ HUSAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

144C(12) of the Income-tax Act, (c) Irrespective of whether the DRP\nconcludes the proceedings and issues directions or not, within 9 months, the\nAssessing officer is to pass orders within the stipulated time,\n(d) In matter involving transfer pricing, upon remand to DRP, the Assessing officer\nis to pass a denovo draft order and the entire proceedings

XANDER ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub- section(3) of section 92CA of the Act. 11. Thus, if, we apply the provisions of section 144C of the Act to the facts of the present appeal, undoubtedly, assessee qualifies as an eligible assessee under sub-section (15)(b)(i) of section 144C of the Act. Further, it is an established fact

XANDER ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub- section(3) of section 92CA of the Act. 11. Thus, if, we apply the provisions of section 144C of the Act to the facts of the present appeal, undoubtedly, assessee qualifies as an eligible assessee under sub-section (15)(b)(i) of section 144C of the Act. Further, it is an established fact

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92-CA; and (ii) any foreign company.’ 7. A reference is also made to the provisions of section 144B relating to the faceless assessment pertaining to the assessment completed in case of eligible assessee u/s 144C of the Act, the relevant provisions are as under: Fresenius Kabi Oncology

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 144C(5) of the Act did not allow reasonable opportunity to the Appellant to fight the case on merits. The directions of the DRP are erroneous and perverse on facts. Transfer Pricing

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

144C, making addition of Rs.4,70,99,145, which included transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,91,52,594 and disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act of Rs.2,79,46,551.  Objections were filed by the Petitioner against the DAO before the DRP, which issued directions dated 24.12.2014 under section 144(5

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

144C, making addition of Rs.4,70,99,145, which included transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,91,52,594 and disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act of Rs.2,79,46,551.  Objections were filed by the Petitioner against the DAO before the DRP, which issued directions dated 24.12.2014 under section 144(5

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

144C, making addition of Rs.4,70,99,145, which included transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,91,52,594 and disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act of Rs.2,79,46,551.  Objections were filed by the Petitioner against the DAO before the DRP, which issued directions dated 24.12.2014 under section 144(5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer passed\nunder sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and\n(ii) any foreign company.]\"\n15. A plain reading of Section indicates that it is obligatory on\nthe part of the AO to forward a draft Assessment Order as per\nthe provisions of Section 144C(1) of the Act. The sub-Section\n(1) of Section 144C being

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92-CA; and (ii) any foreign company.’ 9. A reference is also made to the provisions of section 144B relating to the faceless assessment pertaining to the assessment completed in case of eligible assessee u/s 144C of the Act, which are as under: Ariba India Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT “144B.Faceless Assessment