DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

price for transfer of steam at NIL and, in effect, disregarding the entire transaction- on the following grounds by incorrectly holding that:-  The cost of electricity absorbs the entire cost of production of steam.  Steam is only a by-product of the process of manufacturing power, ignoring the fact that steam is joint product of power plants.  The entire cost

M/S ATOTECH INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee with respect to the above issue is allowed with above direction

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Atotech India Ltd, Acit, 66, Km Stone, Nh-8, Gurgaon Circle, Vs. Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm0338G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(i)(c) of the Act.” 24. For this year the assessee filed its return of income on 28/11/2006 declaring an income of Rs. 7 796 8133/–. As the assessee has entered into international transactions. The matter was referred by the Ld. assessing Page 14 of 15 officer to the Ld. transfer pricing

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)

section 288B of the Income Tax Act'1961. Copies of Form 15CA/CB issued by an independent chartered accountant were also placed before you. We respectfully submit that there should not be any disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS/withholding taxes from the payments made to Intelsat Corporation, we are giving below a brief note on the same: During

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)

section 288B of the Income Tax Act'1961. Copies of Form 15CA/CB issued by an independent chartered accountant were also placed before you. We respectfully submit that there should not be any disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS/withholding taxes from the payments made to Intelsat Corporation, we are giving below a brief note on the same: During

MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 14 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Circle-16(2) 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Vatika Business Park, New Delhi Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Price ("CUP") method. 15. The learned AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)of the Act. 16. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act while completely disregarding the provisions of the Act and the judicial precedence.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that assessee is a resident

M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibg Exploration & Production Jcit, India Ltd, International Taxation, Bg House, Dehradun Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Bg Exploration & Production International Taxation, India Ltd, Bg House, Lake Dehradun Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Vs. Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing benchmarking that each transaction has to be benchmarked separately unless rendered impossible for their inseparability. 1.4 The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that each transaction was very clearly distinguished by the Assessee itself in terms of not only its nature but also the amount paid for them and therefore, the conclusion

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

pricing of a product is a very subjective exercise and is true value, as received by the receiver, can differ from that received by others in the market place. Thus, CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along the following dimensions: (i) Quality of the product or service; (ii) Contractual terms (example, scope and terms of warranties provided, sale

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

pricing of a product is a very subjective exercise and is true value, as received by the receiver, can differ from that received by others in the market place. Thus, CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along the following dimensions: (i) Quality of the product or service; (ii) Contractual terms (example, scope and terms of warranties provided, sale

BT E- SERV (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 99/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Bt E-Serv (India) Pvt. Ltd, Ito, 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Ward-5(2), Vs. Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcb2533M (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1) (c) of the Act. 24. the learned AO has erred in levying interest under sections 234B and 234D of the Act while completely disregarding the provisions of the Act and the judicial precedence.” 5. Though the assessee has raised 24 grounds in this appeal divided into first 13 grounds on Transfer Pricing

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ground No. 1 and 2 is general 4. 5. Ground No. 3 to 3.8 - Transfer pricing

M/S. SIS LIVE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishisis Live Acit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Central Circle-17, Room No. Vs. Golf View Corporate Tower B, 356, E-2, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92 of the Act, dealing with transfer pricing, were not applicable in the assessee's case. In this regard reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Private Limited v. Union of India (WP No. 871 of 2014) wherein it is held that transfer pricing provisions

TRL RICELAND PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S TILDA RICELAND P.LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Transfer Pricing Officer at ₹ 2,670,216,194 making the proportionate adjustment u/s 92CA(3) of the Act of ₹ 193,657,087/- which was confirmed by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. This is the only dispute in this appeal. 3. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 441/Del/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13:- “Impugned Assessment Order

M/S TRL RICELAND PVT. LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S TILDA RICELAND P.LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Transfer Pricing Officer at ₹ 2,670,216,194 making the proportionate adjustment u/s 92CA(3) of the Act of ₹ 193,657,087/- which was confirmed by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. This is the only dispute in this appeal. 3. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 441/Del/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13:- “Impugned Assessment Order

SH. EVALUESERVE.COM PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishievalueserve.Com Private Vs. Ito, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi Pan: Aaace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Study; (b) making erroneous inclusion and exclusion in the set of comparable companies by using erroneous quantitative filers in the search process; (c) using the data of the Financial Year 2005-06 for the comparable companies despite the same being not available to the Assessee at the time of preparation of the documentation under Rule

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Yakult Danone India P Ltd. D.C.I.T. Circle 27(1) 16, 1St Floor Vs. New Delhi Community Centre Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I New Delhi

Transfer Pricing Ground of appeals The Ld.TPO/AO/DRP have erred in making an adjustment 2. under section 92CA (3) of the Act without returning a finding about existence of any of the circumstances specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (3) of section 92C of the Act. The Ld. TPO/AO/ Hon’ble DRP have erred in computing

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)

Transfer Pricing („TP‟) documentation; and b. Determining the arm‟s length margins / prices using data pertaining only to financial Year („FY‟) 2010-11 which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the Indian TP documentation requirements. 4. The learned TPO/AO/DRP have erred in rejecting certain comparable companies selected by the Appellant by applying inappropriate comparability

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 made under normal provisions of the Act; 4. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts and in law by initiating penalty under section 271

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 9(l)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessee was not under any obligation to withhold any tax from the payment so made. 6. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the tax has not been deducted on the payments made by the Assessee to agents of non-resident shipping companies based on declaration received from such companies. Therefore