DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred only to boost profitability and cash flow of appellant. (d) Valuation Report of INMAC is not reliable 10. That on the facts and in law to the extent the orders passed by both AO and CIT(A) are prejudicial to the interest of the assesse the same are bad in law and void ab-initio. 3. The revenue

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred only to boost profitability and cash flow of appellant. (d) Valuation Report of INMAC is not reliable 10. That on the facts and in law to the extent the orders passed by both AO and CIT(A) are prejudicial to the interest of the assesse the same are bad in law and void ab-initio. 3. The revenue

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, as the case may be,] if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: [Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

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, as the case may be,] if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: [Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

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,] if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: [Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)2 vs. DELHI GURGAON SUPER CONNECTIVITY LTD. & ANR.

The appeal is allowed in favour of the

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 263 of the Act, as it reads on date, including Explanation 2 inserted by virtue of Finance Act, 2015, is extracted hereunder: ―263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 263, clause (c) reads as follows:- "where any order referred to in this subsection and passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 263, clause (c) reads as follows:- "where any order referred to in this subsection and passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 263, clause (c) reads as follows:- "where any order referred to in this subsection and passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

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 adjustment made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the arm‘s-length price of export of stainless steel made by the assessee to its associated

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 adjustment made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the arm‘s-length price of export of stainless steel made by the assessee to its associated

IDEMIA SYSCOM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. CIT(TP), DELHI-2, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

Section 263 of the Act reads as under: “263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. (1)The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 263 of the Act. 45 173 In fact, it is pertinent to note that section 263 nowhere refers to an assessment order passed by the NaFAC under section 144B of the Faceless Assessment Scheme to be subjected to revisionary jurisdiction. It only confers revisionary jurisdiction to revise any order passed by the ‘Assessing Officer’ or the ‘Transfer Pricing Officer

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

263 TNMM 6. Payment of Technical 20,092,761 TNMM Assistance Fee 7. Payment of Export 47,054,017 TNMM Commission 8. Reimbursement of 1,065,607 Cost Expenses by AEs Recharges 9. Reimbursement of 33,447 Cost Expenses to AEs Recharges 22 ITA Nos.551/Del./2014 & 636/Del./2015 In the Transfer Pricing study report, the international transactions have been benchmarked

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

transfer pricing provisions as well as section 40A(2) of the Act. However, the AO has not raised any query on these transactions from this point of view. Further, the assessee, in the audit report, has not even disclosed the names of the parties to whom such payments were made.\n\nii. Platform Selling Expenses, During the assessment proceedings

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 263 of the Act: “11. There is another point of not making proper enquiry in this case. Subsequent to issue of shares to the concerns of SK Jain Group, most of the beneficiary companies got the shares transferred at a nominal rate in the name of their directors or their relatives originally issued to such shell companies. Even though

M/S SURAJ BUILDMART INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 263 of the Act: “11. There is another point of not making proper enquiry in this case. Subsequent to issue of shares to the concerns of SK Jain Group, most of the beneficiary companies got the shares transferred at a nominal rate in the name of their directors or their relatives originally issued to such shell companies. Even though

M/S SURAJ PULSES PROCESSORS PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 263 of the Act: “11. There is another point of not making proper enquiry in this case. Subsequent to issue of shares to the concerns of SK Jain Group, most of the beneficiary companies got the shares transferred at a nominal rate in the name of their directors or their relatives originally issued to such shell companies. Even though