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

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 of jurisdiction to the JAO in the impugned assessment order and/ or any other communication to the appellant. 35. Being so, the impugned order passed by Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1) and not by NFAC is, in our respectful submissions, beyond jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law being passed by officer not having jurisdiction

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

35(2AB) of the Act Disallowance w.r.t. deduction claimed under Section 6,38,13,601 80G of the Act on account of donations given 14. Aggrieved by the adjustments made to the returned income, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 15. As regards impugned adjustments to the deductions eligible under s.80IC & s.80IE of Act in terms of section 80IA

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

ii) “relevant assessment years” means the five consec­utive assessment years specified by the assessee at his option under sub- section (3);]] [(iii) “manufacture” includes any— (a) process, or (b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

ii) “relevant assessment years” means the five consec­utive assessment years specified by the assessee at his option under sub- section (3);]] [(iii) “manufacture” includes any— (a) process, or (b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

ii) “relevant assessment years” means the five consec­utive assessment years specified by the assessee at his option under sub- section (3);]] [(iii) “manufacture” includes any— (a) process, or (b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

ii) “relevant assessment years” means the five consec­utive assessment years specified by the assessee at his option under sub- section (3);]] [(iii) “manufacture” includes any— (a) process, or (b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

35% of its profits could be attributed to marketing activities carried out in India and, therefore, chargeable to tax in India. Facts of that case were altogether different and there was a finding that undisputedly there was a PE in India and as per Indo-UK DTAA income has to be taxed in India. An another fact was that there

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations contained in the preceding paragraphs

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

Section 92D(1) and Rule 10D(1) and Rule 10D(4) of the Rules direct that, the comparison should be based on contemporaneous data. It needs to be appreciated that requirement of the existence of information and documentation doesn’t override the provisions of Rule 10B(4)of the Rules regarding the mandatory use of current financial year data

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 92F (v), an international transaction could include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, this cannot be a matter of inference. There has to be some tangible evidence on record to show that two parties have "acted in concert". XXX XXX XXX 37. The provisions under Chapter X do envisage a 'separate entity concept'. In other words, there cannot

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 92F (v), an international transaction could include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, this cannot be a matter of inference. There has to be some tangible evidence on record to show that two parties have "acted in concert". XXX XXX XXX 37. The provisions under Chapter X do envisage a 'separate entity concept'. In other words, there cannot

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

35,27,81,691 52,34,95,468 87,62,77,159 40.26% 59.74% 100% 3. 2008-09 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,99,01,137 53,07,02,415 1,04,06,03,552 49% 51% 100% 4. 2009-10 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,82,89,398 66,74,15,304 1

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

35,27,81,691 52,34,95,468 87,62,77,159 40.26% 59.74% 100% 3. 2008-09 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,99,01,137 53,07,02,415 1,04,06,03,552 49% 51% 100% 4. 2009-10 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,82,89,398 66,74,15,304 1

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

35,27,81,691 52,34,95,468 87,62,77,159 40.26% 59.74% 100% 3. 2008-09 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,99,01,137 53,07,02,415 1,04,06,03,552 49% 51% 100% 4. 2009-10 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,82,89,398 66,74,15,304 1

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

35,27,81,691 52,34,95,468 87,62,77,159 40.26% 59.74% 100% 3. 2008-09 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,99,01,137 53,07,02,415 1,04,06,03,552 49% 51% 100% 4. 2009-10 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,82,89,398 66,74,15,304 1

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

35,27,81,691 52,34,95,468 87,62,77,159 40.26% 59.74% 100% 3. 2008-09 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,99,01,137 53,07,02,415 1,04,06,03,552 49% 51% 100% 4. 2009-10 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,82,89,398 66,74,15,304 1

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

35,27,81,691 52,34,95,468 87,62,77,159 40.26% 59.74% 100% 3. 2008-09 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,99,01,137 53,07,02,415 1,04,06,03,552 49% 51% 100% 4. 2009-10 Manufacturing Trading Total 50,82,89,398 66,74,15,304 1