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)

Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections

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

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

BT E- SERV (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 99/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Bt E-Serv (India) Pvt. Ltd, Ito, 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Ward-5(2), Vs. Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcb2533M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing (TP1) documentation; and pg. 3 BT e- serve ( India ) private Limited V ITO ITA No 565 /Del/2015 A Y 2010-11 ITA No 99/del/2016 A Y 2011-12 b. Determining the arm's length margins / prices using data pertaining only to financial Year ('FY') 2009-10 which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying

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

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

section 92C is read along with Rule 10B(e) and 10A, it becomes abundantly clear that in computing ALP under the transactional net margin method, a comparison of the assessee’s net profit margin from international transactions with its AEs has necessarily to be made with that of the net profit margin realized by the same enterprise or an unrelated

M/S. SIS LIVE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishisis Live Acit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Central Circle-17, Room No. Vs. Golf View Corporate Tower B, 356, E-2, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92 of the Act, dealing with transfer pricing, were not applicable in the assessee's case. In this regard reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Private Limited v. Union of India (WP No. 871 of 2014) wherein it is held that transfer pricing provisions

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

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang 131 699 JAE Hyun Lee 131 701 Mong Nam Jung 131 704 p.36,41 BeomSeok Kang 131 707 Umesh Kumar Dhal

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang 131 699 JAE Hyun Lee 131 701 Mong Nam Jung 131 704 p.36,41 BeomSeok Kang 131 707 Umesh Kumar Dhal

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang 131 699 JAE Hyun Lee 131 701 Mong Nam Jung 131 704 p.36,41 BeomSeok Kang 131 707 Umesh Kumar Dhal

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of the assesse. Ground of appeal Nos. 10 to 10.8 are thus allowed. 92. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.7112/Del/2017 [Assessee’s appeal] Assessment Year: 2013-14 93. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal relating to Assessment Year 2013-14:- 1. “That the assessing

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of the assesse. Ground of appeal Nos. 10 to 10.8 are thus allowed. 92. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.7112/Del/2017 [Assessee’s appeal] Assessment Year: 2013-14 93. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal relating to Assessment Year 2013-14:- 1. “That the assessing

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of the assesse. Ground of appeal Nos. 10 to 10.8 are thus allowed. 92. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.7112/Del/2017 [Assessee’s appeal] Assessment Year: 2013-14 93. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal relating to Assessment Year 2013-14:- 1. “That the assessing

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of the assesse. Ground of appeal Nos. 10 to 10.8 are thus allowed. 92. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.7112/Del/2017 [Assessee’s appeal] Assessment Year: 2013-14 93. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal relating to Assessment Year 2013-14:- 1. “That the assessing

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of the assesse. Ground of appeal Nos. 10 to 10.8 are thus allowed. 92. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.7112/Del/2017 [Assessee’s appeal] Assessment Year: 2013-14 93. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal relating to Assessment Year 2013-14:- 1. “That the assessing

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of the assesse. Ground of appeal Nos. 10 to 10.8 are thus allowed. 92. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.7112/Del/2017 [Assessee’s appeal] Assessment Year: 2013-14 93. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal relating to Assessment Year 2013-14:- 1. “That the assessing