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 compliance efforts to reduce the disadvantage in staking their claim for tax. Higher risk of disputes may be reduced by the advance pricing agreements. On the same intentions and objects, the ld. TPO is also required to compute the ALP of the International transactions of the Assessee for this year. Therefore, the agreement entered into by CBDT 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

section 92B by Finance Act 2012 do not support the case of revenue - The fact that ‘A’ has been held to be a DAPE in assessment of its AE is irrelevant to determination of issue under consideration Premised above factual findings it has been held (refer page 427, para 8.4) by Hon’ble ITAT in AY 09-10 that “Considering

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 92B by Finance Act 2012 do not support the case of revenue - The fact that ‘A’ has been held to be a DAPE in assessment of its AE is irrelevant to determination of issue under consideration Premised above factual findings it has been held (refer page 427, para 8.4) by Hon’ble ITAT in AY 09-10 that “Considering

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 92B by Finance Act 2012 do not support the case of revenue - The fact that ‘A’ has been held to be a DAPE in assessment of its AE is irrelevant to determination of issue under consideration Premised above factual findings it has been held (refer page 427, para 8.4) by Hon’ble ITAT in AY 09-10 that “Considering

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]

Section 92C(3) of the Act). Page 138 When the AO/TPO rejects method adopted by assessed, he is entitled to select MAM, and undertake comparability analysis. Selection of method and comparables should be as per the command and directive of the Act and Rules and justified by giving reasons. The choice of comparables cannot be restricted only to domestic companies

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

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

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 :

Section 92C(3) of the Act). Page 138 When the AO/TPO rejects method adopted by assessed, he is entitled to select MAM, and undertake comparability analysis. Selection of method and comparables should be as per the command and directive of the Act and Rules and justified by giving reasons. The choice of comparables cannot be restricted only to domestic companies

M/S YAKULT DANONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Yakult Danone India P Ltd. D.C.I.T. Circle 27(1) 16, 1St Floor Vs. New Delhi Community Centre Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I New Delhi

section 92 CE to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining arm’s length price of international transaction entered into by assessee with its associated concerns. 2.2. Ld.TPO observed that assessee is a joint venture between Yakult Honsha of Japan and Group Pay Denon of France with 50:50 shareholding. He observed that assessee has been set up to manufacture

KAPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishikaplan India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 226, Tribhuvan Complex, Ward-14(2), Ishwar Nagar, Friends Colony New Delhi (West),New Delhi Pan: Aaics9919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 226, Tribhuvan Complex, Special Range-5, Ishwar Nagar, Friends Colony New Delhi (West),New Delhi Pan: Aaics9919F (Appellant) (Respondent)

pricing officer with a direction to examine the above fact by issue of notice under section 133 (6) of the act to the comparable company and ascertain whether the sum of INR 437,150,000/- spent on „contract for services‟ debited under the General And Administration Expenses are relating to Outsourcing Services or not. If, it is found that these

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 extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

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 extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

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 extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PVT. LTD. (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, (India Branch Office), Circle 1(1), 6Th Floor, Tower D, New Delhi. Vs Global Business Park, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aadca1436G) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Ms Vrinda Tulsiyan, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms Saweta Nakra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

transfer pricing adjustment was the fact that the profit level margins of the assessee’s business were deemed below the accepted profit margin under the provisions of section 92 and, therefore, voluntary adjustment was made to revise the profit margin upwards to meet the provisions of section 92. It was submitted that in numerous cases, the deduction

CORNING SAS- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE,GURUGRAM vs. DDIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), GURGAON

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

price of the alleged 'international transactions' of accounts receivable undertaken with the associated enterprise, on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the TPO. 5.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that delay in receipt of receivable is not an international transaction, per se, under section

M/S CORNING SAS INDIA BRANCH OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

price of the alleged 'international transactions' of accounts receivable undertaken with the associated enterprise, on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the TPO. 5.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that delay in receipt of receivable is not an international transaction, per se, under section

CORNING SAS- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DDIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

price of the alleged 'international transactions' of accounts receivable undertaken with the associated enterprise, on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the TPO. 5.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that delay in receipt of receivable is not an international transaction, per se, under section

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 92B of the I.T. Act. Appeal of the assessee against the said decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench is still pending before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court implying that the said decision of Special Bench has not been overruled by subsequent High Court decision in the case of assessee till now. While delivering the said decision