COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANKITECH PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

2(22)(e) of the Act, which reads as under: ―Explanation 3 – For the purposes of this Clause,-‖ (a) ―concern‖ means a Hindu undivided family, or a firm or an associate of persons or a body of individuals or a company; (b) a person shall be deemed to have a substantial interest in a concern, other than a company

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBC WORLD INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer" means a Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Board17 to perform all or any of the functions of an Assessing Officer specified in sections 92C and 92D in respect of any person or class of persons.]” Provisions of section 2

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA)PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

transfer pricing adjustment is to substitute the transaction price with the arm's length price so determined. The second proviso to section 92C(2

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

transfer pricing adjustment is to substitute the transaction price with the arm's length price so determined. The second proviso to section 92C(2

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

section 92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. (2) Where a reference is made under sub-section (1), the Transfer Pricing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MENTOR GRAPHICS (NOIDA) PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C makes it clear that where more than one price

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

transfer price has to be determined by the TPO in terms of Section 92C of the Act. The price has to be determined by using any one of the methods stipulated in sub-section (1) of Section 92C and by applying the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (2

LI & FUNG INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order dated 25/11/11 of the ITAT Tribunal, Delhi Branch

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Price is more than 5% no benefits under the proviso to Section 92C(2) is available to the assessee. 10. The transfer

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. Section 92CA (2) of the Act provides that where a reference is made under sub-section (1), the Transfer

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

2), New Delhi, [learned Transfer Pricing Officer/TPO] to determine the arm’s-length price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee as per the provisions of Section

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer price has to be determined by the TPO in terms of section 92C. The price has to be determined by any one of the methods stipulated in sub- section (1) of section 92C and by applying the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (2

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer price has to be determined by the TPO in terms of section 92C. The price has to be determined by any one of the methods stipulated in sub- section (1) of section 92C and by applying the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (2

NOBLE RESOURCE & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2), the most appropriate method, referred to in Section 92C(1), "shall be applied, for determination of arm's length price, in the manner prescribed". Therefore, as long as the method covered by rule 10AB, which is duly covered by Section 92C(1) satisfies the test of being the 'most appropriate method', it can be applied to a fact situation

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2), the most appropriate method, referred to in Section 92C(1), "shall be applied, for determination of arm's length price, in the manner prescribed". Therefore, as long as the method covered by rule 10AB, which is duly covered by Section 92C(1) satisfies the test of being the 'most appropriate method', it can be applied to a fact situation