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)

4 Sun mar sipping Ltd 23.02 5 PL shipping and logistics private limited 3.17 6 Sindhu cargo services Ltd 8.13 7 Arithmetic mean 13.83 The learned transfer pricing officer denied the working capital adjustment is no justification was given by the assessee. He recast Margins of the assessee by disallowing management fees and computed the same at 5.32 percentage

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)

4 Sun mar sipping Ltd 23.02 5 PL shipping and logistics private limited 3.17 6 Sindhu cargo services Ltd 8.13 7 Arithmetic mean 13.83 The learned transfer pricing officer denied the working capital adjustment is no justification was given by the assessee. He recast Margins of the assessee by disallowing management fees and computed the same at 5.32 percentage

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

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

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 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

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

172 2. Mokama- Munger NHAI Two laining with 2.43.46,365 paved shoulder of (Through Mokama Munger Project Section of NH-Bo Company Mokama- Munger Highway Ltd. 3. Danapur ROB Ircon Construction of 72,30,449 International Road over Bridge Ltd. both railway span and adjacent approaches including Reinforced Earth Wall/Retaining Wall between section Phulwarishrif- Danapur on EC Railway, Bihar 4

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) who vide his order dated 29.01.2021 proposed adjustment of Rs. 1,14,41,802/- on account of interest on advance given to BSC C&C JV Nepal Ltd. The Ld. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (“FAO”) 3 proceeded to frame draft order under section 144C of the Act. He computed the total 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

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, 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

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

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

172 to 226 of Volume 4 of the Additional evidence Paperbook) (f) A handbook issued on February 2010 by BGIL on operation guideline on Safe Isolation and Reinstatement of Plant which forms part of the BG Group operations requirements for all global assets.(Page 227 to 299 of Volume 4 of the Additional evidence Paperbook) (g) A slide deck issued

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.:

172,23,63,772 27,91,48,215 200,15,11,987 Data processing receipts / Software Export Services 2. IT Support Services 4,08,064 16,45,94,331 16,50,02,395 - 3. Call Centre receipt 11,13,900 11,13,900 4. Other Income 7,89,85,298.11 72,66,491.46 8,62,51.789.57 Total

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

172 ITR 311(SC) and held that the transaction of lease would fall within the general meaning of transfer of a capital asset. Therefore, it would be futile to examine whether Section 269UA was applicable. The ITAT held that the Explanation to Section 2(47) could be invoked only

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

172 ITR 311(SC) and held that the transaction of lease would fall within the general meaning of transfer of a capital asset. Therefore, it would be futile to examine whether Section 269UA was applicable. The ITAT held that the Explanation to Section 2(47) could be invoked only

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

172 ITR 311(SC) and held that the transaction of lease would fall within the general meaning of transfer of a capital asset. Therefore, it would be futile to examine whether Section 269UA was applicable. The ITAT held that the Explanation to Section 2(47) could be invoked only

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