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)

2 having their headquarters mentioned in column 3 shall exercise such powers and perform such function of Transfer Pricing Officers as mentioned in Section 92CA for the purpose of sections 92C and 92D of the Act, in respect of persons or classes of persons mentioned in column 5:" 5. It was submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate that

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

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 issue. The first ground of appeal is against action of the lower authorities disregarding and ignoring comparable uncontrolled price submitted

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)

2) &(3) of section 14A of the Act were not satisfied. That the AO/ DRP erred on facts and in law in not 10.2 appreciating that there was no nexus between any interest expenditure incurred by the appellant and the exempt income and consequently, no part of interest expenditure was, in any case, disallowable under section 14Aof the Act. That

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

2) by the eligible assessee. [(14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] [(14-B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette

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

2) by the eligible assessee. [(14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] [(14-B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette

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

2) by the eligible assessee. [(14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] [(14-B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette

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

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered by the assessee on account of commercial expediency and when the recipients had paid tax on payments received from the assessee company, disallowance could not be made by applying provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. It would be pertinent

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,20,89,180, by applying a markup of 7.77%, 4.13% and 18.24%, being the NP of Dharuhera, Gurgaon and Neemrana units respectively, to the purchases of Rs.14.71 crores, 25.68 crores and Rs.2.88 lacs made from the respective units by applying the provisions of section 80IA(8) read with section 80IC

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

2 to 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

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

2 to 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

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

2 to 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

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