M/S ATOTECH INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee with respect to the above issue is allowed with above direction

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Atotech India Ltd, Acit, 66, Km Stone, Nh-8, Gurgaon Circle, Vs. Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm0338G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing principles 3.2 in not appropriately considering the function, asset and risk profile of the company used for comparison with the appellant. 3.3 in confirming the fresh search carried out by the Ld. AO/TPO using an erroneous comparable set of only one company against the principle of comparability. 3.4 without prejudice to Ground 2, in confirming the action

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing (‗TP‘) documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‗Rules‘); not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises (‗AEs‘) 2.2 ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 3 of 134 as the tested party, being the least complex

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

section 234B and 234C of the act which is consequential in nature, no arguments advanced on it, therefore same is also dismissed. 33. Now we deal with the first issue of Transfer pricing

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

section 234B and 234C of the act which is consequential in nature, no arguments advanced on it, therefore same is also dismissed. 33. Now we deal with the first issue of Transfer pricing

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

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

234B & 234C of the Act. 11. That on facts and in law, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO/TPO to determine Arm’s Length Price is bad in law and void ab-initio.” 2.2 Thus, in crux, the assessee is aggrieved by the following additions/disallowances made by the AO in the instant case:- (a) Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

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

234B & 234C of the Act. 11. That on facts and in law, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO/TPO to determine Arm’s Length Price is bad in law and void ab-initio.” 2.2 Thus, in crux, the assessee is aggrieved by the following additions/disallowances made by the AO in the instant case:- (a) Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

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

234B & 234C of the Act. 11. That on facts and in law, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO/TPO to determine Arm’s Length Price is bad in law and void ab-initio.” 2.2 Thus, in crux, the assessee is aggrieved by the following additions/disallowances made by the AO in the instant case:- (a) Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of AMP expenses, the Tribunal relied upon the Coordinate Bench decision in the Respondent assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 which has been upheld by this Court in ITA 154/2017 deleting the addition on the ground that the TPO has wrongly invoked the provisions of Chapter

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)

sections 234B and 234D of the Act while completely disregarding the provisions of the Act and the judicial precedence.” 5. Though the assessee has raised 24 grounds in this appeal divided into first 13 grounds on Transfer Pricing

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

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

234B and Section 234C of the Act. 10. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ground No. 1 and 2 is general 4. 5. Ground No. 3 to 3.8 - Transfer pricing

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

234B of the Act. That the appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend, and/or vary the ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 6. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that though the assessee has raised various grounds in appeal but the sole issue in dispute pertains to the transfer of pricing adjustment

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

234B of the Act.” Grounds raised in A.Y. 2010-11: “General: 1. That the impugned order of assessment framed by the assessing officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRP’) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( ‘Act’), is bad in law, violative of principles

SH. EVALUESERVE.COM PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishievalueserve.Com Private Vs. Ito, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi Pan: Aaace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Study; (b) making erroneous inclusion and exclusion in the set of comparable companies by using erroneous quantitative filers in the search process; (c) using the data of the Financial Year 2005-06 for the comparable companies despite the same being not available to the Assessee at the time of preparation of the documentation under Rule

TRANSCEND MT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishitranscend Mt Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Heartland Income Tax, Information & Consultancy Circle-25(2), Services Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi Plot No. 1/1, Arakere, Bannerghata Road, Bangalore Pan: Aabch2275E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) / DRP have erred in making an upward TP adjustment of Rs. 3,22,41,526 in respect of the transaction pertaining to provision of back office medical transcription services to its associated enterprises (“AEs"), alleging that the same were not at arm’s length. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

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

KAPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishikaplan India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 226, Tribhuvan Complex, Ward-14(2), Ishwar Nagar, Friends Colony New Delhi (West),New Delhi Pan: Aaics9919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 226, Tribhuvan Complex, Special Range-5, Ishwar Nagar, Friends Colony New Delhi (West),New Delhi Pan: Aaics9919F (Appellant) (Respondent)

234B and section 234C of the Act.” 50. As stated that facts are similar to the case of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12. In the present case the assessee has challenged the following comparables which have been selected by the learned transfer pricing

A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PVT. LTD. (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, (India Branch Office), Circle 1(1), 6Th Floor, Tower D, New Delhi. Vs Global Business Park, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aadca1436G) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Ms Vrinda Tulsiyan, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms Saweta Nakra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

transfer pricing adjustment made by the appellant. B.2 Set off of brought forward loss. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing set off of brought forward loss of Rs. 5,389,388 as claimed