BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer 47[or the Transfer Pricing

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act. During such proceedings, - the TPO, vide notice dated 25.02.2021, inter-alia, required the assessee to submit the details of change in shareholding structure and other international transactions [refer pages 97-98 of paperbook]; and - in response thereto, the appellantvide reply dated 07.07.2021 submitted (as Annexure-11 to the reply

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

price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 92C. This exercise at one end is to accept or discredit the TPSR of the assessee on the other hand obliges the TPO to make an independent enquiry of his own on the question of determination of ALP. The point is that in present

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

price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 92C. This exercise at one end is to accept or discredit the TPSR of the assessee on the other hand obliges the TPO to make an independent enquiry of his own on the question of determination of ALP. The point is that in present

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.

Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) records relating to the draft order; (f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it. 2020:DHC:3740-DB ITA 77/2019 Page 6 of 18 13. In our opinion, in such type of cases

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

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR MAHASANG HARYANA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH/FARIDABAD

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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that lease for a period of ten years of plant and machinery along with land and building was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (14) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that lease for a period of ten years of plant and machinery along with land and building was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (14) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

section 92C (2) of the Act.\n11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)\nhave erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for\ncomparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of\nthe Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price.\nCORPORATE

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing, rule is to benchmark transactions by transactions. Only if the transactions are closely linked, then the same can be aggregated, but aggregation is more of exception, than a rule. If the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson has held that AMP is the separate international transaction specially in the case of distribution companies

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing, rule is to benchmark transactions by transactions. Only if the transactions are closely linked, then the same can be aggregated, but aggregation is more of exception, than a rule. If the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson has held that AMP is the separate international transaction specially in the case of distribution companies

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIOANAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

Transfer Pricing Officer has made several observations to the effect that, as evident from the analysis of financial performance, the assessee did not benefit, in ITA 475/2012 Page 26 terms of financial results, from these services. This analysis is also completely irrelevant, because whether a particular expense on services received actually benefits an Assessee in monetary terms or not even

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

transferred directly or indirectly to its members (100% share holding in the company is that of the Central Government). It filed its return under section 139(1), in time, showing income at Rs. NIL, after claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act, on the strength of the registration u/ s. 12AA granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

transferred directly or indirectly to its members (100% share holding in the company is that of the Central Government). It filed its return under section 139(1), in time, showing income at Rs. NIL, after claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act, on the strength of the registration u/ s. 12AA granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment