COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

2), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce, including any information or documents referred to in sub-section (3) of section 92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered

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

22. The learned departmental representative referred the paragraph number 5 of the order of the learned transfer-pricing officer wherein this issue was discussed. He submitted that the learned transfer pricing officer has held that the agreement entered between the assessee as well as the associated , it is apparent that assessee did not have any independent business interest in India

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

2) A transaction entered into by an enterprise with a person other than an associated enterprise shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be an international transaction entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 15:09:32 Signature Not Verified ITA 155/2022 & 156/2022

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

2) A transaction entered into by an enterprise with a person other than an associated enterprise shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be an international transaction entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 15:09:32 Signature Not Verified ITA 155/2022 & 156/2022

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances? 4. If answer to question Nos.2 and 3 is in favour

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. BHAGWATI COAL MOVERS (P) LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

price. "Profits" are to be actual profits calculated on commercial principles. Amount taxed u/s 41(2) in the hands of company did not represent "accumulated profits" for the purpose of section 2(22) of the Act. • CIT v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. AIR [1969 SC 1058.= 2008 - TMI - 5136 - SUPREME Court] Share premium account is to be included in the paid

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

The appeal is allowed

section 92C on the basis of such material or informaction or document available with him. After the Transfer Pricing Officer determines the arm’s length price, it is incumbent upon him to send a copy of the order to the assessing officer and to the assessee. In the present case what has happened is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 15 of UPD Act. The assessee-company has precisely done this and has obtained the approval of GDA for construction of 3,22,469 sq. ft FSI. This permission from GDA has been received in financial year 2012-13 and accordingly the assessee- company has admitted the corresponding development rights consideration as income. The details of the approval received

SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 15 of UPD Act. The assessee-company has precisely done this and has obtained the approval of GDA for construction of 3,22,469 sq. ft FSI. This permission from GDA has been received in financial year 2012-13 and accordingly the assessee- company has admitted the corresponding development rights consideration as income. The details of the approval received

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 15 of UPD Act. The assessee-company has precisely done this and has obtained the approval of GDA for construction of 3,22,469 sq. ft FSI. This permission from GDA has been received in financial year 2012-13 and accordingly the assessee- company has admitted the corresponding development rights consideration as income. The details of the approval received

PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 15 of UPD Act. The assessee-company has precisely done this and has obtained the approval of GDA for construction of 3,22,469 sq. ft FSI. This permission from GDA has been received in financial year 2012-13 and accordingly the assessee- company has admitted the corresponding development rights consideration as income. The details of the approval received

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

section 92C(2) of the Act and Rule 10B of the Rules provide the manner in which such methods should be applied by the assessee, assessing officer, Transfer Pricing Officer, etc. 11. Mr. Porus Kaka, learned senior counsel, while stating that the TNMM was chosen by LFIL as the appropriate method to calculate the arm‟s length, provided the court

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)

22 of its direction held that since the transfer pricing officer has held that since cost of Page 14 of 55 steam is already considered while generating power and therefore the resultant cost of production of steam is Rs Nil and therefore no markup is to be added for transferring the same to the non- exempt unit. Accordingly, the learned

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

22 inflated or not only is a matter to be tested under a comprehensive transfer pricing analysis. The assessee did not benchmark these costs in its transfer pricing study. Neither was any transfer pricing study conducted by the TPO, who, crucially, did not say that the ALP was lower than the amount claimed. He, instead disallowed the expenditure altogether

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GEN X COMMODITIES (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit Vs M/S. Gen X Commodities (P) Ltd., Central Circle-29 Fa-45, Shivaji Enclave New Delhi New Delhi-110027 Pan-Aaaca2303H Appellant Respondent Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Revenue By Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025

22, 2007 Client Code Modifications In terms of provisions of the Rules, Bye-Laws and Business Rules of the Exchange, the Members of the Exchange are notified as under. Forward Markets Commission (FMC) vide its letter no. 6/3/2006/MKT-II (VOL III) dated December 20 2006 and January 5, 2007 has directed as under: a. The facility of client code modifications intra

AKHIL TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit Vs M/S. Gen X Commodities (P) Ltd., Central Circle-29 Fa-45, Shivaji Enclave New Delhi New Delhi-110027 Pan-Aaaca2303H Appellant Respondent Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Revenue By Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025

22, 2007 Client Code Modifications In terms of provisions of the Rules, Bye-Laws and Business Rules of the Exchange, the Members of the Exchange are notified as under. Forward Markets Commission (FMC) vide its letter no. 6/3/2006/MKT-II (VOL III) dated December 20 2006 and January 5, 2007 has directed as under: a. The facility of client code modifications intra

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