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 {hereinafter referred to as the “TPO”} had vide order dated 14th September 2011 accepted the ALP of all International Transactions undertaken by the appellant. 3.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition on account of alleged “Transaction” / “International Transaction” of issue of Corporate Guarantee without appreciating that there

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

14A - Rs. 1,308 21. On the facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,308 under Section I4A.” 15. Now, we first take up the transfer pricing

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)

Transfer Pricing (‗TP‘) documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‗Rules‘); not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises (‗AEs‘) 2.2 ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 3 of 134 as the tested party, being the least complex

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 study by comparing the monthly average price realized in export to related parties with similar average of price of export to the unrelated parties. 2.2 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that prices of goods exported to associated enterprise and unrelated third parties varies within a day itself

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 study by comparing the monthly average price realized in export to related parties with similar average of price of export to the unrelated parties. 2.2 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that prices of goods exported to associated enterprise and unrelated third parties varies within a day itself

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

Section 10A, need not be computer software as understood in the common parlance of even customized electronic data, as generally understood. Any product or service of similar nature would include in its ambit, product and services which were enabled by, i.e. would rely upon, or are driven by information technology. This becomes clear when we refer to the wide ambit

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

Section 10A, need not be computer software as understood in the common parlance of even customized electronic data, as generally understood. Any product or service of similar nature would include in its ambit, product and services which were enabled by, i.e. would rely upon, or are driven by information technology. This becomes clear when we refer to the wide ambit

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

Section 10A, need not be computer software as understood in the common parlance of even customized electronic data, as generally understood. Any product or service of similar nature would include in its ambit, product and services which were enabled by, i.e. would rely upon, or are driven by information technology. This becomes clear when we refer to the wide ambit

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]

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of AMP expenses, the Tribunal relied upon the Coordinate Bench decision in the Respondent assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 which has been upheld by this Court in ITA 154/2017 deleting the addition on the ground that the TPO has wrongly invoked the provisions of Chapter

M/S. RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of our directions contained in the preceding

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09

14A of the Act Rs. 1,19,79,827/- iv) Merchant banking licence transferred Rs. 6,80,61,425/- v) Disallowance of provision for expenses Rs. 79,99,216/- vi) Disallowance of depreciation on UPS Rs. 43,17,187/- vii) Disallowance of depreciation on other assets Rs. 3,47,98,353/- 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

transfer pricing principles under Section 40A(2) and Chapter X-A. The assessee must establish: (a) The operating costs were arm's length (b) The apportionment to assessee was arm's length (c) Documentation was contemporaneously maintained The assessee has failed on all three counts. The vague "mutually agreed" language in the MOU, the absence of detailed cost accounting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

transfer pricing principles under Section 40A(2) and Chapter X-A. The assessee must establish: (a) The operating costs were arm's length (b) The apportionment to assessee was arm's length (c) Documentation was contemporaneously maintained The assessee has failed on all three counts. The vague "mutually agreed" language in the MOU, the absence of detailed cost accounting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

transfer pricing principles under Section 40A(2) and Chapter X-A. The assessee must establish: (a) The operating costs were arm's length (b) The apportionment to assessee was arm's length (c) Documentation was contemporaneously maintained The assessee has failed on all three counts. The vague "mutually agreed" language in the MOU, the absence of detailed cost accounting

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

price charged from other unrelated parties. (ii) That genuineness of such receipts being not in dispute, it is not open to consider any income on notional and hypothetical basis. 5 (i). That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing officer was not justified in confirming the disallowance to Rs. 2,76,28,704/- u/s 14A without appreciating

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing addition on account of the corporate guarantee commission of ₹ 103,485,509/– iii. disallowance u/s 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 22,521,366/– iv. charge of interest on external commercial borrowing of ₹ 518,00,31,066 to be taxed at the rate of 10% as per the provisions of article 11 of the Double Taxation

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

price at which the conversion of investment took place wouldbe chargeable under the head income from business. Since, the conversion and subsequent sale have taken place during the same previous year, the sale proceeds become taxable under the head capital gain, unless the appellant has adopted different rates for conversion & subsequent transfers. 4.5.5 However as pointed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

price at which the conversion of investment took place wouldbe chargeable under the head income from business. Since, the conversion and subsequent sale have taken place during the same previous year, the sale proceeds become taxable under the head capital gain, unless the appellant has adopted different rates for conversion & subsequent transfers. 4.5.5 However as pointed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

price at which the conversion of investment took place wouldbe chargeable under the head income from business. Since, the conversion and subsequent sale have taken place during the same previous year, the sale proceeds become taxable under the head capital gain, unless the appellant has adopted different rates for conversion & subsequent transfers. 4.5.5 However as pointed