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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(22)(e), do not apply to the facts of the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. on account of deemed dividend of Rs. 19,34,21,760/-, is hereby deleted.” 12. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds

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

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

e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. 3.1. The assessee challenged all the three additions before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the three additions. The assessee is in appeal challenging the above three additions on all the seven grounds of appeals

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

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

e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. 3.1. The assessee challenged all the three additions before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the three additions. The assessee is in appeal challenging the above three additions on all the seven grounds of appeals

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

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

e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. 3.1. The assessee challenged all the three additions before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the three additions. The assessee is in appeal challenging the above three additions on all the seven grounds of appeals

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

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

e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. 3.1. The assessee challenged all the three additions before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the three additions. The assessee is in appeal challenging the above three additions on all the seven grounds of appeals

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 2(iii) approval in view of the interim order dated 10th January, 2017 of the Division Bench of this Court. However, this does not, in any manner, confer any right upon the petitioner. Similarly, the communication dated 20th October, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Mines does not come to the aid of the petitioner. By the said communication

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board. (2) The most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (1) shall be applied, for determination of arm’s length price, in the manner as may be prescribed: [Provided that ………..: Provided further that ……...] (3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SANJAY PASSI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

price for sale was Q 1,20,00,000 against which the assessee received an advance of Q 1 crore. In our opinion, when the advance received by the assessee from the company in which she is a substantial shareholder, was for a transaction relating to sale of property, the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e

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

e) to section 92B are described as "international transaction". This might be only an illustrative list, but significantly it does not list AMP spending as one such transaction. 61. The submission of the Revenue in this regard is : "The mere fact that the service or benefit has been provided by one party to the other would by itself constitute

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

e) to section 92B are described as "international transaction". This might be only an illustrative list, but significantly it does not list AMP spending as one such transaction. 61. The submission of the Revenue in this regard is : "The mere fact that the service or benefit has been provided by one party to the other would by itself constitute

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

E R PER BENCH 1. This is the bunch of 11 appeals and cross objections by the parties in case of one Assessee , appellant/respondent involving similar issue and therefore they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. ITA number 996/del/2011 and CO number 315/del/2011 assessment year 2002 – 03 2. ITA number 996/del/2011 is filed by the Deputy

(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

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

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

e earned while units transferring to eligible units (in Rs.) 1 Transfer of goods 14,70,99,3 7.77% 1,14,29,623 from Dharuhera 99 to Haridwar 2 Transfer of goods 25,68,24,7 4.13% 1,06,06,864 from Gurgaon to 96 Haridwar 3 Transfer of goods 2,88,887 18.24 52,693 from Neemrana % to Haridwar

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

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

22)(e) will not be applicable in the present case. The issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12. Therefore, Ground Nos. 23 to 23.3 are allowed in favour of the assessee. 38. As relates to Ground No. 24- 24.1 regarding disallowance of payments made for advisory services availed form Hero

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