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 is extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

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 is extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

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 is extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

MUFG BANK,LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

transfer pricing assessment proceedings, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice. 1.7 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, the Hon’ble DRP and Ld. AO/TPO erred in using non-comparable guarantee rates from the data obtained under Section 133(6) of the Act, thereby, resorting to cherry

WM INDIA TECHNICAL AND CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiwm India Technical & Vs. Dcit, Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd, Circle-27(2), E-20, First & Second Floor, Hauz New Delhi Khas, New Delhi Pan: Aaacw7112N (Appellant) (Respondent)

244A of the act. It is consequential in nature and therefore dismissed. 4. Ground number 10 is against the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is premature, hence dismissed. 5. Ground number 2 to 6 are related to the transfer pricing adjustment. 6. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee was incorporated

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing report prepared by an independent consultant, namely, Deloitte Tax LLP, USA. 8.4 While allegedly holding that no benefit was received by the assessee from payment of corporate charges, the DRP erred on facts and in law in summarily disregarding the correlation between services received from the associated enterprise and increase in the revenue and profits of the appellant

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing report prepared by an independent consultant, namely, Deloitte Tax LLP, USA. 8.4 While allegedly holding that no benefit was received by the assessee from payment of corporate charges, the DRP erred on facts and in law in summarily disregarding the correlation between services received from the associated enterprise and increase in the revenue and profits of the appellant

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing report prepared by an independent consultant, namely, Deloitte Tax LLP, USA. 8.4 While allegedly holding that no benefit was received by the assessee from payment of corporate charges, the DRP erred on facts and in law in summarily disregarding the correlation between services received from the associated enterprise and increase in the revenue and profits of the appellant

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing report prepared by an independent consultant, namely, Deloitte Tax LLP, USA. 8.4 While allegedly holding that no benefit was received by the assessee from payment of corporate charges, the DRP erred on facts and in law in summarily disregarding the correlation between services received from the associated enterprise and increase in the revenue and profits of the appellant

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing report prepared by an independent consultant, namely, Deloitte Tax LLP, USA. 8.4 While allegedly holding that no benefit was received by the assessee from payment of corporate charges, the DRP erred on facts and in law in summarily disregarding the correlation between services received from the associated enterprise and increase in the revenue and profits of the appellant

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing report prepared by an independent consultant, namely, Deloitte Tax LLP, USA. 8.4 While allegedly holding that no benefit was received by the assessee from payment of corporate charges, the DRP erred on facts and in law in summarily disregarding the correlation between services received from the associated enterprise and increase in the revenue and profits of the appellant

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Assessment of the Indian subsidiary and hence there arose no occasion to allocate any further profits to such PE. 5. That without prejudice the AO/ DRP has erred on facts and in law, in relying on the Foreign Collaboration Agreement entered between the appellant and LGIL (which was approved by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Assessment of the Indian subsidiary and hence there arose no occasion to allocate any further profits to such PE. 5. That without prejudice the AO/ DRP has erred on facts and in law, in relying on the Foreign Collaboration Agreement entered between the appellant and LGIL (which was approved by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Assessment of the Indian subsidiary and hence there arose no occasion to allocate any further profits to such PE. 5. That without prejudice the AO/ DRP has erred on facts and in law, in relying on the Foreign Collaboration Agreement entered between the appellant and LGIL (which was approved by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2008-09

transfer pricing addition cannot be considered for allowing the benefit of deduction under this section. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for a fresh determination of the ALP of the international transaction of `Software development services’ in consonance with our decision on various aspects

NALWA STEEL POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

transfer price of power, disallowances of expenses. 5. That the Ld. A.O. has erred in facts and in law by disallowing the bank guarantee commission u/s 40a(ia) amounting to Rs. 1,14,085/- despite of the direction given by the Hon'ble DRP towards deletion of such addition made u/s 40a(ia) of I.T. Act. Hence the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

244A were at Rs.16,20,444/- 2.7 Aggrieved with the draft assessment order proposed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as per the provisions of section 144C(2) of the Act, on 01/05/2014. The findings of the DRP in its order dated 30.12.2014 are summarized as under: 11 (a) Transfer pricing

CEVA FREIGHT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

Transfer Pricing Documentation within the time-frame mentioned in Rule 10D(4) of the Income Tax Rules. 1.12. By not allowing the benefit of (+/-) 5 percent as provided in the proviso to Section 92C (2) of the Act, while determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Appellant. 1.13. By misconstruing the function, asset and risk

CEVA FREIGHT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

Transfer Pricing Documentation within the time-frame mentioned in Rule 10D(4) of the Income Tax Rules. 1.12. By not allowing the benefit of (+/-) 5 percent as provided in the proviso to Section 92C (2) of the Act, while determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Appellant. 1.13. By misconstruing the function, asset and risk