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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

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

168/- with respect to the ALP of the intra- group services received by the assessee. 3.2 The AO also made some other disallowances/additions in the final assessment order which pertained to liquidated damages, addition in ITA 1057/D/16, 567/Kol/15, 494/Kol/15, 1154/D/16, 3207/D/16 respect of advances and deposits written off and addition relating to provision for warranty 3.3 Aggrieved, the assessee approached

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

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

168/- with respect to the ALP of the intra- group services received by the assessee. 3.2 The AO also made some other disallowances/additions in the final assessment order which pertained to liquidated damages, addition in ITA 1057/D/16, 567/Kol/15, 494/Kol/15, 1154/D/16, 3207/D/16 respect of advances and deposits written off and addition relating to provision for warranty 3.3 Aggrieved, the assessee approached

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

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

168/- with respect to the ALP of the intra- group services received by the assessee. 3.2 The AO also made some other disallowances/additions in the final assessment order which pertained to liquidated damages, addition in ITA 1057/D/16, 567/Kol/15, 494/Kol/15, 1154/D/16, 3207/D/16 respect of advances and deposits written off and addition relating to provision for warranty 3.3 Aggrieved, the assessee approached

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

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

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

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

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

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

MUFG BANK,LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 133(6) of the Act to enable the Assessee I.T.A. No.1065/Del/2022 11 to place its response and defend its stance on application of MAM. It was thus submitted that ITAT, in first round, has not adjudicated the application of CUP as MAM to benchmark the impugned transactions. 11. We have heard the rival submission on the transfer pricing adjustment

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) were bad in law as the pre- requisite for applying Chapter-X, ie, existence of an international transaction between two Associated Enterprises (“AE”) under the provisions of section 92B of the Act, was not satisfied or existed in the present case. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) were bad in law as the pre- requisite for applying Chapter-X, ie, existence of an international transaction between two Associated Enterprises (“AE”) under the provisions of section 92B of the Act, was not satisfied or existed in the present case. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

Appeal is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) were bad in law as the pre- requisite for applying Chapter-X, ie, existence of an international transaction between two Associated Enterprises (“AE”) under the provisions of section 92B of the Act, was not satisfied or existed in the present case. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

Appeal is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) were bad in law as the pre- requisite for applying Chapter-X, ie, existence of an international transaction between two Associated Enterprises (“AE”) under the provisions of section 92B of the Act, was not satisfied or existed in the present case. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

TECHBOOKS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishitechbooks International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 37, Block-A, Circle-3, Sector-60, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida Noida Pan: Aabct3774A (Appellant) (Respondent)

168,08,44,212/– and therefore he proposed an adjustment on that account of ₹ 14,36,27,996/- . This issue was challenged before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel [ DRP] and ultimately the DRP directed the learned transfer pricing officer to include and to exclude certain comparables. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel, the learned transfer

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)

168,000/-. However, the Hon’ble DRP did not grant any relief in respect of the receivables. 2.1.1 In this year, the assessee had selected seven comparables for benchmarking in respect of transactions involving investment advisory services in its transfer pricing documentation and the TPO rejected four comparables out of the same and added six new comparables in the final

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)

168,000/-. However, the Hon’ble DRP did not grant any relief in respect of the receivables. 2.1.1 In this year, the assessee had selected seven comparables for benchmarking in respect of transactions involving investment advisory services in its transfer pricing documentation and the TPO rejected four comparables out of the same and added six new comparables in the final