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

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

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)

section 92CA(3) of the Act and subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel {'DRP'). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other and without prejudice to each other. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Transfer Pricing grounds: 1. The transfer pricing adjustment

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

section 40(a)(i) are directed to be deleted. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal stand allowed. In view of this decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of assessee, the advance ruling relied on by the ld. DR does not help the revenue, as the said ruling is binding on that applicant and not upon the Tribunal u/s. 245S

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 adjustment back to the file of Ld AO/ TPO for ascertaining the correct functional profile of the assessee for this year without being influenced by the order of the E Valueserve.com Pvt Ltd V ITO ITA 4001/del/2013 AY 2006-07 coordinate bench for AY 2007-08, then carry out examination of comparability analysis and then determine

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

391\n3.\nRental expenditure\n4,28,13,157\n4.\nDirector’s Remuneration\n13,08,54,514\n5.\nRemuneration paid to relative of director\n41,56,788\n6.\nDirector’s sitting fees\n15,35,000\n7.\nCommission paid to directors\n1,29,49,000\n8.\nPurchase of Goods (PVC Compounds)\n5,57,003\nTotal

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

391\n3.\nRental expenditure\n4,28,13,157\n4.\nDirector’s Remuneration\n13,08,54,514\n5.\nRemuneration paid to relative of director\n41,56,788\n6.\nDirector’s sitting fees\n15,35,000\n7.\nCommission paid to directors\n1,29,49,000\n8.\nPurchase of Goods (PVC Compounds)\n5,57,003\nTotal

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

391\n\n3.\n\nRental expenditure\n\n4,28,13,157\n\n4.\n\nDirector’s Remuneration\n\n13,08,54,514\n\n5.\n\nRemuneration paid to relative of director\n\n41,56,788\n\n6.\n\nDirector’s sitting fees\n\n15,35,000\n\n7.\n\nCommission paid to directors

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

391\n3.\nRental expenditure\n4,28,13,157\n4.\nDirector’s Remuneration\n13,08,54,514\n5.\nRemuneration paid to relative of director\n41,56,788\n6.\nDirector’s sitting fees\n15,35,000\n7.\nCommission paid to directors\n1,29,49,000\n8.\nPurchase of Goods (PVC Compounds)\n5,57,003\nTotal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred its shareholding in JFAL in lieu of receipt of shares of JSL and claimed that the transaction was exempt from capital gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred its shareholding in JFAL in lieu of receipt of shares of JSL and claimed that the transaction was exempt from capital gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred its shareholding in JFAL in lieu of receipt of shares of JSL and claimed that the transaction was exempt from capital gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred its shareholding in JFAL in lieu of receipt of shares of JSL and claimed that the transaction was exempt from capital gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred its shareholding in JFAL in lieu of receipt of shares of JSL and claimed that the transaction was exempt from capital gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

391,61,31,541 incurred by the appellant, for purchase of mobile phones and accessories from Nokia Corp, under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 5. The Ld, TPO / Ld. AO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred on facts and in law in enhancing the income of the appellant by INR 20,60,00,000 by making a transfer pricing

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

391,931,625 Difference/ adjustment 22,11,60,596 5. The Ld. AO in his final assessment order dated 31.10.2011 enhanced the income of the assessee by making addition of Rs. 41,20,14,305/- proposed by the Ld. TPO. 6. The Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) vide its order dated 20.9.2011 confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., 1A-D, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Vandana Building, Vs. C.R. Building, Ip Estate, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Acit (Osd), Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Cit-V, Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ito, Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Ward-13(3), Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi C.R. Building, Pan:Aaaca0443N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing provisions were introduced in India. For this ld DR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) which held as under:- “22. Viewed thus, adopting a pedantic approach in determination of arm‟s length price, which serves letter of the law but leads to the conclusion diametrically opposed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NOBLE RESOURCE AND TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ltd., 1A-D, Circle-13(1), Room No. 406, Vandana Building, Vs. C.R. Building, Ip Estate, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Acit (Osd), Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Cit-V, Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0443N (Appellant) (Respondent) Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. Ito, Ltd., 1A-D, Vandana Building, Ward-13(3), Vs. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi C.R. Building, Pan:Aaaca0443N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing provisions were introduced in India. For this ld DR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) which held as under:- “22. Viewed thus, adopting a pedantic approach in determination of arm‟s length price, which serves letter of the law but leads to the conclusion diametrically opposed