CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

151 (2) of the Act; 2.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in completing reassessment proceedings under section 147 / 148 of the Act based on the issue of an invalid notice under section 143(2) of the Act which is the primary requirement for initiation of any assessment proceedings;” Below Ground

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibg Exploration & Production Jcit, India Ltd, International Taxation, Bg House, Dehradun Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Bg Exploration & Production International Taxation, India Ltd, Bg House, Lake Dehradun Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Vs. Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer was sustained to that extent. iv) With respect to the disallowance of the production cost of Rs. 31678 6095/- under section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act, The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel held that as the Assessee has failed to show the commercial expediency test in the instant case, the disallowance is correctly made

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law." 85. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, para 7.13 emphasises that there should not be any automatic inference about an AE receiving an entity group service only because it gets an incidental benefit for being part of a larger concern

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 vide letter dated 20.12.2013. In order to verify the correctness of the exploration expenses paid by the assessee for AY 2006-07 to 2012-13  The assessee filed detailed objections to the assumption of jurisdiction vide letter dated 05.03.2014.  The assessee in response to notice under section 153C filed income-tax return (‗ITR‘) on 18.03.2014 returning income

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 vide letter dated 20.12.2013. In order to verify the correctness of the exploration expenses paid by the assessee for AY 2006-07 to 2012-13  The assessee filed detailed objections to the assumption of jurisdiction vide letter dated 05.03.2014.  The assessee in response to notice under section 153C filed income-tax return (‗ITR‘) on 18.03.2014 returning income

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 vide letter dated 20.12.2013. In order to verify the correctness of the exploration expenses paid by the assessee for AY 2006-07 to 2012-13  The assessee filed detailed objections to the assumption of jurisdiction vide letter dated 05.03.2014.  The assessee in response to notice under section 153C filed income-tax return (‗ITR‘) on 18.03.2014 returning income

M/S STERIA NDIA LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”) at an income of Rs. 151,50,53,700 as against the returned income of Rs. 113,27,64,370 under normal provisions of the Act. Transfer Pricing issue: 2

STERIA (INDIA) LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”) at an income of Rs. 151,50,53,700 as against the returned income of Rs. 113,27,64,370 under normal provisions of the Act. Transfer Pricing issue: 2

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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”) at an income of Rs. 151,50,53,700 as against the returned income of Rs. 113,27,64,370 under normal provisions of the Act. Transfer Pricing issue: 2

M/S. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiagilent Technologies Acit, (International) Pvt. Ltd, Circle-1, Vs. Plot No.-Cp-11, Sector-8, Gurgaon Imt Mangsar, Gurgaon Pan: Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under that Explanation. He placed reliance upon the following decisions to contend that except for adjustments provided in Explanation 1 Section ITA No.64/Del./2015 115JB(2) of the Act, no other adjustment can be made to book profits under Section of the Act :- i. Apollo Tyres

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

transfer of agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head "Capital gains". The argument raised is not well founded. 12. Gujarat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai's case (supra) while dealing with deduction of tax at source relying upon Circular No. 5 of 2010 held that amendment to the provisions

TELENOR (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45 of the Act, it is axiomatic that there has to be an income derived by the assessee on transfer of a ‘capital asset’. In the instant case in our opinion the appellant had not acquired any capital asset from UW under an agreement dated 06.12.2012, since UW had no such asset held by it at any point

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

Transfer Pricing Review for the FY ended 31.03.2007 (pages 643-648, 653-654 of Paper Book). He further submitted that TNMM applied by the TPO which has been accepted by the assessee takes care of minor differences in functional profile etc. and hence this company be retained as a comparable company. 14.5 We have heard the Ld. Representatives of both

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

transfer price” of Rs. 1241.32 crores, which was a mutually negotiated and agreed consideration. Clause 3.2 of the said Agreement provided that the parties would request Kotak, a SEBI registered Category I merchant banker, to prepare a valuation report relating to the fair market value of VIL pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Framework Agreement dated 5.7.2007, to confirm

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

transferred from F.NO CCIT-2 / DLI/ Exchange information /2017-2018 dated 08.11.2.017 on account of non genuine long term capital gain. It is gathered that during the FY 2013-2014 the assessee had traded shares of M/s Esteem Bio amounting to Rs 23,57,640. As per information forwarded it has been noticed that trading in this script is suspicious

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

transferred to the appellant when the supplier/ vendor completed production of the finished goods and dispatched the same to the assessee and only when the assessee approves and accepts the said goods i.e. title passes on acceptance of goods. Until that stage of acceptance on delivery, there is no transfer of title as per the intention of the parties gathered

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

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