M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

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

Transfer Pricing benchmarking that each transaction has to be benchmarked separately unless rendered impossible for their inseparability. 1.4 The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that each transaction was very clearly distinguished by the Assessee itself in terms of not only its nature but also the amount paid for them and therefore, the conclusion

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

234. 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 62,205,874 on account of the alleged difference in the arm’s length price of the ‘international transactions’ of (i) Payment of Trademark fees, (ii) Creating of AMP intangible and (iii) export of goods entered into by the appellant with

BT E- SERV (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 99/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Bt E-Serv (India) Pvt. Ltd, Ito, 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Ward-5(2), Vs. Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcb2533M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C (3) of the Act. 4. The learned TPO / AO / DRP have erred in: a. Not accepting the use of multiple year data, as adopted by the appellant in its Transfer Pricing (TP1) documentation; and pg. 3 BT e- serve ( India ) private Limited V ITO ITA No 565 /Del/2015 A Y 2010-11 ITA No 99/del/2016

STERIA INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAQL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer („IPO‟). 2.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in considering the following companies in the final set of comparables for the purpose of benchmarking analysis not appreciating that these companies are functionally not comparable to the appellant: a. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. (seg) b. Mindtree Ltd. c. Thirdware Solutions Limited 2.2 That

STERIA (INDIA) LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer („IPO‟). 2.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in considering the following companies in the final set of comparables for the purpose of benchmarking analysis not appreciating that these companies are functionally not comparable to the appellant: a. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. (seg) b. Mindtree Ltd. c. Thirdware Solutions Limited 2.2 That

M/S STERIA NDIA LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer („IPO‟). 2.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in considering the following companies in the final set of comparables for the purpose of benchmarking analysis not appreciating that these companies are functionally not comparable to the appellant: a. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. (seg) b. Mindtree Ltd. c. Thirdware Solutions Limited 2.2 That

MORNINGSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimorningstar India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Platinum Tech Circle-17(1), Park, Delhi Plot No. 17/18, Sector-30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Pan: Aaacx0362K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144C has preferred this appeal before us. 4. The learned authorised representative submitted that assessee challenges the transfer pricing adjustment made to the international transaction of the assessee of INR 147770775/– and is pressing for exclusion of following comparables: a. Accentia technologies Ltd b. E Clerx services Ltd c. Infosys BPO Ltd d. TCs E serve international

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Transfer Pricing Officer vide letter dated 20.12.2013. In order to verify the correctness of the exploration expenses paid by the assessee for AY 2006-07 to 2012-13  The assessee filed detailed objections to the assumption of jurisdiction vide letter dated 05.03.2014.  The assessee in response to notice under section 153C filed income-tax return (‗ITR‘) on 18.03.2014 returning income

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Transfer Pricing Officer vide letter dated 20.12.2013. In order to verify the correctness of the exploration expenses paid by the assessee for AY 2006-07 to 2012-13  The assessee filed detailed objections to the assumption of jurisdiction vide letter dated 05.03.2014.  The assessee in response to notice under section 153C filed income-tax return (‗ITR‘) on 18.03.2014 returning income

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Transfer Pricing Officer vide letter dated 20.12.2013. In order to verify the correctness of the exploration expenses paid by the assessee for AY 2006-07 to 2012-13  The assessee filed detailed objections to the assumption of jurisdiction vide letter dated 05.03.2014.  The assessee in response to notice under section 153C filed income-tax return (‗ITR‘) on 18.03.2014 returning income

KAPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 234 B and 234 C of the act while completely disregarding the provisions affecting the judicial precedence. 3.0 It is seen that although several grounds of appeal have been raised in the appeal memorandum, the assessee is mainly aggrieved by transfer pricing

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD.,, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected.” 49. In PepsiCo (supra), this Tribunal, while examining the AMP issue examined the implications of the recent developments in transfer pricing spearheaded