ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

251 ITR 53) relied upon by the appellant was distinguishable on facts and would not apply. The Tribunal thereafter considered the applicability of the decision of the Madras Bench in the case of Raj Television Network Ltd. It held that the said decision need not be followed inasmuch as the 2011:DHC:566-DB Madras Bench did not have

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

Transfer Pricing Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel and has analysed the same threadbare. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) as under (page 251): "A reading of the heading of Chapter X ('Special provisions relating to avoidance of tax') and section 92(1

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

Transfer Pricing Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel and has analysed the same threadbare. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) as under (page 251): "A reading of the heading of Chapter X ('Special provisions relating to avoidance of tax') and section 92(1

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

Transfer Pricing Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel and has analysed the same threadbare. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) as under (page 251): "A reading of the heading of Chapter X ('Special provisions relating to avoidance of tax') and section 92(1

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 Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel and has analysed the same threadbare. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) as under (page 251): "A reading of the heading of Chapter X ('Special provisions relating to avoidance of tax') and section 92(1

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)

Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

transfer of the shares and had not come clean with all the relevant facts and documents for the purpose of ascertainment of the exact nature of the transactions which obviously covers both the limbs section 271(1)(c) i.e concealment of particulars of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars. No doubt, penalty Jet Lite (India) Ltd proceedings

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 :

Transfer Pricing Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel and has analysed the same threadbare. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) as under (page 251): "A reading of the heading of Chapter X ('Special provisions relating to avoidance of tax') and section 92(1

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

251/-. Transfer Pricing Grounds of Appeal 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned TPO/AO/CIT(A} have erred in rejecting certain companies and adding certain functionally dissimilar companies to the final set of alleged comparable companies on an ad-hoc basis, thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies for benchmarking the International transaction

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

251/-. Transfer Pricing Grounds of Appeal 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned TPO/AO/CIT(A} have erred in rejecting certain companies and adding certain functionally dissimilar companies to the final set of alleged comparable companies on an ad-hoc basis, thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies for benchmarking the International transaction

M/S. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiagilent Technologies Acit, (International) Pvt. Ltd, Circle-1, Vs. Plot No.-Cp-11, Sector-8, Gurgaon Imt Mangsar, Gurgaon Pan: Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under that Explanation. He placed reliance upon the following decisions to contend that except for adjustments provided in Explanation 1 Section ITA No.64/Del./2015 115JB(2) of the Act, no other adjustment can be made to book profits under Section of the Act :- i. Apollo Tyres

DEGANIA MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishidegania Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 251, Sector-6, Circle-1(1), Imt Manesar, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan:Aaccd0262A (Appellant) (Respondent)

251, Sector-6, Circle-1(1), IMT Manesar, Gurgaon Gurgaon PAN:AACCD0262A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv Revenue by: Shri Amrender Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 07/11/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assistant

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

price for procurement of similar components from the domestic vendors.” 2.2 ITA 6302/Del/2015 (Department’s Appeal: “1. Whether on the facts & that circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1250773885 on account of disallowance of royalty and technical guidance fee? 2. Whether on the facts & that circumstances of the case

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

price for procurement of similar components from the domestic vendors.” 2.2 ITA 6302/Del/2015 (Department’s Appeal: “1. Whether on the facts & that circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1250773885 on account of disallowance of royalty and technical guidance fee? 2. Whether on the facts & that circumstances of the case

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)

251 ITR 541 and stated that the setting aside the issue back to the file of the learned transfer pricing officer will give a 2nd lease of life to the issue when everything is on record. We have carefully considered the facts of that particular case and note that in that particular decision the fact shows that a businessman

GURINDER MOHAN SINGH NINDRAJOG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

transfer of Rs. 5,85,000 to Forbesganj branch was noted by the Income-tax Officer and also the fact that it did not reach ITA No.322/2005 Page 24 of 38 Forbesganj on the same day. So it was argued that in the appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to deal with the question of the taxability

GURINDER MOHAN SINGH NINDRAJOG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

transfer of Rs. 5,85,000 to Forbesganj branch was noted by the Income-tax Officer and also the fact that it did not reach 2011:DHC:5139-DB ITA No.322/2005 Page 24 of 38 Forbesganj on the same day. So it was argued that in the appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to deal with the question

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C (2) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for comparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price. CORPORATE