PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

35 of 38 “II. Section 92B of the Act, provides an exclusive definition of International Transaction. Although, the definition is worded broadly, the current definition of International Transaction leaves scope for its misinterpretation. The definition by its concise nature does not mention all the nature and details of transactions, taking benefit of which large number of International Transactions

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

transfer” inclusively for the purpose of levying capital gains, would be 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 25 of 40 applicable and capital gains would have been declared by the APIL but in view of APIL’s reply, the assessing officer concluded that possession of the land was not given to the assessee. He further noted that

LIUGONG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated above

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

section 92C, the arm 's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely:— (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,— (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBC WORLD INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

35. The assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal in its cross objection stating that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax (The Transfer Pricing Officer) is invalid as it was raised in assessment year 2002 – 03 in the cross objection filed by the assessee. We have already dealt with the above cross objection in deciding

LI & FUNG INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order dated 25/11/11 of the ITAT Tribunal, Delhi Branch

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

ii) specifically defines Arm‟s Length Price as a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions. ITA 306/2012 Page 29 31. To compute arm‟s length price of an assessee, several methods are prescribed under Section 92C of IT Act. As per this provision

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)

35 taxmann.com 335. Therefore he directed the learned assessing officer to consider the above expenditure as deductible expenditure under section 37 (1) of the act and the assessing officer was directed to work out the amount of ESOP expenses to be allowed in assessment year 2008 – 09 in accordance with the decision of the special bench of the tribunal. Thus

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)

35 taxmann.com 335. Therefore he directed the learned assessing officer to consider the above expenditure as deductible expenditure under section 37 (1) of the act and the assessing officer was directed to work out the amount of ESOP expenses to be allowed in assessment year 2008 – 09 in accordance with the decision of the special bench of the tribunal. Thus

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

35,728.  Objections were filed by the Petitioner against the DAO before the DRP, which issued directions dated 14.09.2015 under section 144(5), confirming the additions. In the 2nd round of proceedings pursuant to remand by the ITAT, despite the Petitioner qualifying as ‗eligible assessee‘ in terms of section 144C(15), draft assessment order was not passed by the Respondent

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

35,728.  Objections were filed by the Petitioner against the DAO before the DRP, which issued directions dated 14.09.2015 under section 144(5), confirming the additions. In the 2nd round of proceedings pursuant to remand by the ITAT, despite the Petitioner qualifying as ‗eligible assessee‘ in terms of section 144C(15), draft assessment order was not passed by the Respondent

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

35,728.  Objections were filed by the Petitioner against the DAO before the DRP, which issued directions dated 14.09.2015 under section 144(5), confirming the additions. In the 2nd round of proceedings pursuant to remand by the ITAT, despite the Petitioner qualifying as ‗eligible assessee‘ in terms of section 144C(15), draft assessment order was not passed by the Respondent

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

35,70,462 by comparing the prices of international transaction of export with prices in the domestic transaction and (iii) Making Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 34,94,445 by comparing prices of international transaction of export with prices of export of steel product to unrelated party after making adjustment for variation in composition of Nickel. 3.1 That the assessing

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

35,70,462 by comparing the prices of international transaction of export with prices in the domestic transaction and (iii) Making Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 34,94,445 by comparing prices of international transaction of export with prices of export of steel product to unrelated party after making adjustment for variation in composition of Nickel. 3.1 That the assessing

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

1) which sets out the different methods of determining the ALP, makes it clear that the transfer pricing adjustment is made by substituting the ALP for the price of the transaction. To begin with there has to be an international transaction with a certain disclosed price. The transfer pricing adjustment envisages the substitution of the price of such international transaction

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

1) which sets out the different methods of determining the ALP, makes it clear that the transfer pricing adjustment is made by substituting the ALP for the price of the transaction. To begin with there has to be an international transaction with a certain disclosed price. The transfer pricing adjustment envisages the substitution of the price of such international transaction

NOBLE RESOURCE & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

II, New Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Delhi (the learned DRP ) disposing of the objections filed by the assessee in the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer wherein the adjustment proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer [ the ld TPO] in order u/s 92CA

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

II, New Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Delhi (the learned DRP ) disposing of the objections filed by the assessee in the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer wherein the adjustment proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer [ the ld TPO] in order u/s 92CA

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)

Section 92CA of the act. 06. As stated, that assessee mostly had Specified Domestic Transactions [SDT]. Assessee has shown transfer of power and steam from eligible unit to non-eligible unit during the year. 07. Assessee has shown the transfer of the power as per its transfer pricing study report from eligible unit to non-eligible unit as Under :- Transferor

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) vs. GE CALEDONIAN LTD

Bench: The Learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Ncdrc) Against The Petitioner Lucina Land Development Ltd. & Others By 51 Allotees Of Flats In A Project Of The Petitioners, Titled ―Indiabulls Greens Panvel‖ (―The Project‖, Hereinafter). The Complaint, Preferred Under Section Digitally Signed By:Sunil Singh Negi Signing Date:02.05.2022 15:58:14 Signature Not Verified

transfer of case from one forum to the other or there does not exist any provision to grant injunction. Absence of such provisions in our opinion would not render the statute ultra vires the Constitution or unworkable. 52. The very fact that in a given case a party under the said Act may approach upto this Court and/or may otherwise