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

transfer pricing study by comparing the monthly average price realized in export to related parties with similar average of price of export to the unrelated parties. 2.2 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that prices of goods exported to associated enterprise and unrelated third parties varies within a day itself

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

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

transfer pricing officer u/s 92CA (3) of the act on 28th of January 2013. 10. There was a corporate disallowance made by the learned assessing officer u/s 40 (a) (i) of the act of ₹ 2 46835593/– as the learned assessing officer noted that the assessee has made a payment to a non-resident associated enterprise towards rendering freight and forwarding

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

transfer pricing officer u/s 92CA (3) of the act on 28th of January 2013. 10. There was a corporate disallowance made by the learned assessing officer u/s 40 (a) (i) of the act of ₹ 2 46835593/– as the learned assessing officer noted that the assessee has made a payment to a non-resident associated enterprise towards rendering freight and forwarding

M/S VIAVI SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation requirements. 15. Without prejudice to above, in the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned AO /TPO / DRP have erred in not using Resale Price Method as the most appropriate method for computation of arm’s length price for the impugned transaction. Rejection/Selection of comparable companies 16. The learned AO / TPO/ DRP have

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation requirements. 15. Without prejudice to above, in the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned AO /TPO / DRP have erred in not using Resale Price Method as the most appropriate method for computation of arm’s length price for the impugned transaction. Rejection/Selection of comparable companies 16. The learned AO / TPO/ DRP have

VIAVI SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY JDSU INDIA PVT. LTD),GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation requirements. 15. Without prejudice to above, in the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned AO /TPO / DRP have erred in not using Resale Price Method as the most appropriate method for computation of arm’s length price for the impugned transaction. Rejection/Selection of comparable companies 16. The learned AO / TPO/ DRP have

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C (2) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for comparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price. CORPORATE

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR MAHASANG HARYANA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH/FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C (2) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for comparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price. CORPORATE

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 92C (2) of the Act.\n11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)\nhave erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for\ncomparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of\nthe Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price.\nCORPORATE

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

3 \ndeduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect of power\ngeneration unit and also claimed deduction under section 80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

3\ndeduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect of power\ngeneration unit and also claimed deduction under section 80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA of the Act was made to the TPO\nfor determination of ALP in respect of international transactions\nand specified domestic

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA of the Act was made to the TPO\nfor determination of ALP in respect of international transactions\nand specified domestic

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

172,385 Arm’s length margin 30.07& ALP 1,613,092,221 Price charged by Appellant 1,391,931,625 Difference/ adjustment 22,11,60,596 5. The Ld. AO in his final assessment order dated 31.10.2011 enhanced the income of the assessee by making addition of Rs. 41,20,14,305/- proposed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, DELHI vs. M/S BIO-RAD LABORATORIES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 12 of NCTE Act, 1993 it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of Teacher Education.  There are approximately 430 applications for various Teacher Education Programmes, other than Diploma level courses, pending at different stages in the RCs.  NEP 2020 has brought

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

transfer pricing principles and statutory provisions or not. If he himself founds some irregularity or mistake in any of the process or the steps undertaken, then he is bound to correct in accordance with the settled principles and law. If the assessee points out some mistake or any irregularity in the arm's length result, then it is incumbent upon

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

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

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Transfer Pricing Officer, are as under: 9 Adjustment for excessive AMP Rs 83,32,15,949/- Adjustment for receivables Rs 37,87,911/- Total Rs 83,70,03,860/- 2.6 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order dated 29th of March 2014, wherein the TP additions made by the TPO were incorporated. In the draft assessment order