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

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 40(a)(i) are directed to be deleted. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal stand allowed. In view of this decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of assessee, the advance ruling relied on by the ld. DR does not help the revenue, as the said ruling is binding on that applicant and not upon the Tribunal u/s. 245S

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

Transfer Pricing order, Ld.CIT DR submitted that, apart from trademark fee and royalty fee, assessee is purchasing major raw materials for its manufacturing activity, from its AEs, which is reported as international transaction. He submitted that AE apart from trademark fee and royalty is also deriving benefits by way of selling its products in India. Referring to chart of estimated

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

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

transfer pricing legislation and relied upon the decision of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.5140/Del/2011). 15. Ld. DRP while agreeing with the TPO that the payment for intra group services to AEs is separate international transactions independent of financial results and capable of verifiable separately on the following issues :- “In an uncontrolled environment any taxpayer for availing the services

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

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

transfer pricing legislation and relied upon the decision of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.5140/Del/2011). 15. Ld. DRP while agreeing with the TPO that the payment for intra group services to AEs is separate international transactions independent of financial results and capable of verifiable separately on the following issues :- “In an uncontrolled environment any taxpayer for availing the services

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

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

transfer pricing legislation and relied upon the decision of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.5140/Del/2011). 15. Ld. DRP while agreeing with the TPO that the payment for intra group services to AEs is separate international transactions independent of financial results and capable of verifiable separately on the following issues :- “In an uncontrolled environment any taxpayer for availing the services

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

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The Ld. AR submitted that in the final set of comparables, the following 12 companies had been selected:- 1. Calibre Point Business Solutions Limited 2. e4e Healthcare Limited 3. Informed Technologies India Limited 4. Infosys BPO Limited 5. Jindal Intellicom Limited ITA 6690/Del/2016 Assessment year 2012-13 6. Microgenetics Systems Limited

PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

160 Taxman 404) to support his contention that excise duty had nothing to do with the cost of production and as such should not be considered for computing the turnover. We find that the methodology applied by the CIT (A) in AY 2009-10 cannot be blindly applied in every year because that was based on total production between

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

Transfer Pricing TPO : Adjustment in respect 7,80,19,356/ Page 91-96 loan is required to 15 benchmarking of Page 3-8 Para 4.2 - Para73- 77 benchmarked as per interest received on foreign currency loan LIBOR and TPO was DRP: not justified in Page 56 Para 18.3 applying SBI PLR. The adjustment was accordingly deleted. 7. The learned authorised

GLOBE GROUND INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charyglobe Ground India Pvt. Ltd, The Deputy V C-9, Connaught House, Commissioner Of Income S. Connaught Place, Tax , New Delhi Circle-12(1), Pan: Aaacg8313K New Delhi

section 92C(2). 2. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing ground and passenger handling services to airlines at airport. It filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 41350620/– on 30/10/2007. As the assessee has entered into an international transactions of ground handling services rendered

M/S D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

section 92C (1) of the Act while determining interest for outstanding receivables making the addition bad in law and liable to be deleted. Reliance placed on: Nimbus Communications Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 132 TTJ 351 (Mumbai) 5. The Appellant further submits that any separate adjustment on the pretext of outstanding receivables while accepting the transfer price of the underlying transaction

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

section 92C (1) of the Act while determining interest for outstanding receivables making the addition bad in law and liable to be deleted. Reliance placed on: Nimbus Communications Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 132 TTJ 351 (Mumbai) 5. The Appellant further submits that any separate adjustment on the pretext of outstanding receivables while accepting the transfer price of the underlying transaction

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

section 92C (1) of the Act while determining interest for outstanding receivables making the addition bad in law and liable to be deleted. Reliance placed on: Nimbus Communications Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 132 TTJ 351 (Mumbai) 5. The Appellant further submits that any separate adjustment on the pretext of outstanding receivables while accepting the transfer price of the underlying transaction

AIRCOM INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2012-13 & Ay: 2013-14

section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act. 10.2. We are inclined to allow claim of assessee and delete addition made by Ld.AO to extent of Rs.8,03,982/-. 10.3. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed partly. 11. Ground No. 3 are in respect of transfer pricing adjustments made by Ld. TPO. 11.1. Ld.Counsel submitted that following are transfer