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

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

3) provides that if such an ALP results in a decrease in the tax incidence in India, the true value of the transaction will be the value stated by the assessee and not the ALP. In other words, if an assessee is paying greater income tax than would otherwise be paid in an uncontrolled transaction, Section 92 will not alter

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

3 Provision of Marketing Support services 10782778 TNMM 4 Re-imbursement of Expenses 19067033 No 5 Recovery of expenses 721078 No bench marking 4. The Tribunal records that although the TPO did not interfere with the benchmarking in respect of transactions listed at S. No. 1, 4 and 5, it came to the conclusion that the assessee had incurred

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

3 Provision of Marketing Support services 10782778 TNMM 4 Re-imbursement of Expenses 19067033 No 5 Recovery of expenses 721078 No bench marking 4. The Tribunal records that although the TPO did not interfere with the benchmarking in respect of transactions listed at S. No. 1, 4 and 5, it came to the conclusion that the assessee had incurred

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

40A(2) clause (b) is a provision for computing arm‘s length price in case of two related parties as defined and applies even when the conditions stipulated in Section 37(1) of the Act are satisfied. The said provision relates to reasonability of the quantum. Similarly, Chapter X of the Act relates to arm‘s length pricing adjustment. Chapter

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 92F(ii) which defines arm's length price to mean a price "which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises in uncontrolled conditions". Since the reference is to "price" and to "uncontrolled conditions" it implicitly brings into play the bright line test. In other words, it emphasises that where

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

3%. When the issue landed up before the DRP, the DRP had, after analyzing the issue, directed the AO/TPO to compute the interest on loans to AE @ 14% per annum thereby enhanced the transfer pricing adjustment. Aggrieved assessee took up the issue with the Tribunal. The Hon‘ble Tribunal, after due consideration of the issue in depth

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed on all the grounds

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4111/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ito, Vs M/S. Suresh Kumar, Ward-52(1), 84/367, Sec-1, Diz Area, New Delhi-110002 Gole Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajgpk2729R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2020

transfer through a bank; (iii) a book adjustment from any account in a bank to any other account in that or any other bank; (iv) a bill of exchange made payable only to a bank; (e) where the payment is made for the purchase of— (i) agricultural or forest produce, the produce of animal husbandry , fish or fish products

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

3 is in favour of the Revenue, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that transfer pricing adjustment in respect of AMP Expenses should be computed by applying Cost Plus Method. (v) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that fresh bench marking/comparability analysis should be undertaken by the Transfer Pricing Officer by applying

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

3 is in favour of the Revenue, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that transfer pricing adjustment in respect of AMP Expenses should be computed by applying Cost Plus Method. (v) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that fresh bench marking/comparability analysis should be undertaken by the Transfer Pricing Officer by applying

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

3. Decision rendered by Hon’ble ITAT in AY 09-10 has been upheld by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 26.04.2017 in ITA No. 154/2017….copy enclosed at pages 515-516. 4. The above decisions have thereafter also been followed by Hon’ble ITAT in case of ‘A’ for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 1835/Del/2015 vide order

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

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

3. Decision rendered by Hon’ble ITAT in AY 09-10 has been upheld by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 26.04.2017 in ITA No. 154/2017….copy enclosed at pages 515-516. 4. The above decisions have thereafter also been followed by Hon’ble ITAT in case of ‘A’ for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 1835/Del/2015 vide order

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

3. Decision rendered by Hon’ble ITAT in AY 09-10 has been upheld by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 26.04.2017 in ITA No. 154/2017….copy enclosed at pages 515-516. 4. The above decisions have thereafter also been followed by Hon’ble ITAT in case of ‘A’ for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 1835/Del/2015 vide order

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

3) of the Act). Page 138 When the AO/TPO rejects method adopted by assessed, he is entitled to select MAM, and undertake comparability analysis. Selection of method and comparables should be as per the command and directive of the Act and Rules and justified by giving reasons. The choice of comparables cannot be restricted only to domestic companies using

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit E-9, Connaught Hose, Circle – 2(2), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi - 110001 Pan No. Aaaca 0364 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Taran Deep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.09.2019 Of The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 1, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

3) of the Act). Page 138 When the AO/TPO rejects method adopted by assessed, he is entitled to select MAM, and undertake comparability analysis. Selection of method and comparables should be as per the command and directive of the Act and Rules and justified by giving reasons. The choice of comparables cannot be restricted only to domestic companies using

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

Section 2(p)] (1) When any question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act, the Director on receipt of a complaint in this behalf, shall make enquiries from ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. the Tahsildar concerned, whether the person against whom complaint has been made, either cultivates the land