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, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be,] such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260

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

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)

Section 117 of the Act. Therefore the definition of the Joint Commissioner includes the Additional Commissioner also. In view of this, additional ground raised by the assessee does not have any merit. Hence dismissed. 13. Adverting to the various other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the learned authorised representative submitted a chart and stated that it is challenging

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, 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:

260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3). 49[(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing

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:

260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3). 49[(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 92CA (3) on 31.10.2019. The ld. TPO noted that the BAPA Agreement provides ACP of the commission of 22.5% to 29.5%. The Arms Length margin of the AEs other than Japan should be taken at 26%. He selected 11 comparables and found average third PLI 24.35%. He applied Arms Length percentage of margin at 26% on operating expenses

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 92CA (3) on 31.10.2019. The ld. TPO noted that the BAPA Agreement provides ACP of the commission of 22.5% to 29.5%. The Arms Length margin of the AEs other than Japan should be taken at 26%. He selected 11 comparables and found average third PLI 24.35%. He applied Arms Length percentage of margin at 26% on operating expenses

AMERICAN EXPRESS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiamerican Express (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Circle-2(2), Office Block, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan:Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. American Express (India) Pvt. Circle-2(2), Ltd, New Delhi Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent)

260/-. Part - Transfer pricing grounds of appeal 3. That on facts of the case and in law, the TPO/AO/DRP have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for international transaction pertaining to export of data processing and back office support services ("impugned transaction"). 4. That on facts of the case

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2008-09] L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Asstt. C.I.T A-27, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Circle - 3 Estate, Mathura Road Noida [U.P] New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 1745 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.01.2019

260 have received. Reimbursement that appellant has 33,55,48,510 received. Adjustment to assessee’s income 264,96,17,750 9. Before us, the ld. AR has vehemently stated that the TPO has proceeded by inferring the expenses of international transaction by applying BLT by drawing support from the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

Transfer Pricing TPO : Adjustment in respect 7,80,19,356/ Page 91-96 loan is required to 15 benchmarking of Page 3-8 Para 4.2 - Para73- 77 benchmarked as per interest received on foreign currency loan LIBOR and TPO was DRP: not justified in Page 56 Para 18.3 applying SBI PLR. The adjustment was accordingly deleted. 7. The learned authorised

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“Act”) for ascertaining arm’s length price (“ALP”) of the above transactions. The Ld. TPO vide order dated 18.10.2016 has proposed to make the following adjustments :- S. No. Type of International Transaction Total Value of Transaction (Rs.) 1. Intra Group Service - Employee 34,11,787 Secondment

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“Act”) for ascertaining arm’s length price (“ALP”) of the above transactions. The Ld. TPO vide order dated 18.10.2016 has proposed to make the following adjustments :- S. No. Type of International Transaction Total Value of Transaction (Rs.) 1. Intra Group Service - Employee 34,11,787 Secondment

TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

transfer pricing study report where the type of services rendered and received by the assesee is shown along with basis of the allocation, details of services availed, manner in which services rendered and details of benefit derived is mentioned. He further referred to page No. 250 of the paper book which are bills for the services availed by the assesee

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

transfer price determined by the revenue authorities (A.O. / TPO], addition on account of "adjustments" cannot be deleted. This is because the mandate of section 92(1) is that in every case of international Assessment year: 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13 transaction, income has to be determined having regard to ALP. Therefore, unless ALP furnished by the taxpayer is specifically

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

transfer price determined by the revenue authorities (A.O. / TPO], addition on account of "adjustments" cannot be deleted. This is because the mandate of section 92(1) is that in every case of international Assessment year: 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13 transaction, income has to be determined having regard to ALP. Therefore, unless ALP furnished by the taxpayer is specifically

M/S D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

transfer price determined by the revenue authorities (A.O. / TPO], addition on account of "adjustments" cannot be deleted. This is because the mandate of section 92(1) is that in every case of international Assessment year: 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13 transaction, income has to be determined having regard to ALP. Therefore, unless ALP furnished by the taxpayer is specifically

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL AB, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271 of the Act.” 2. Out of above grounds, the assessee has not pressed ground No. 1 & 2 , ground No. 17 is consequential and ground No. 18 is premature. Grounds in Department’s Appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer/Transfer

M/S. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL AB (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271 of the Act.” 2. Out of above grounds, the assessee has not pressed ground No. 1 & 2 , ground No. 17 is consequential and ground No. 18 is premature. Grounds in Department’s Appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer/Transfer