MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

7 of 45 consideration for the sale of the brand and would be subject to the tax as per the relevant taxing provisions. The distributors or wholesalers to whom the Assessee sells the goods by using the brand logo of the foreign AE are economic owners “only in a commercial sense for the limited purpose of exploiting

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“Act”) for ascertaining arm’s length price (“ALP”) of the above transactions. The Ld. TPO vide order dated 18.10.2016 has proposed to make the following adjustments :- S. No. Type of International Transaction Total Value of Transaction (Rs.) 1. Intra Group Service - Employee 34,11,787 Secondment

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“Act”) for ascertaining arm’s length price (“ALP”) of the above transactions. The Ld. TPO vide order dated 18.10.2016 has proposed to make the following adjustments :- S. No. Type of International Transaction Total Value of Transaction (Rs.) 1. Intra Group Service - Employee 34,11,787 Secondment

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

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission of additional\nevidences

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

7 of 40 in terms of which the Assessee was required to promote the B&L brand and to develop marketing intangibles for B&L products in India by incurring expenditure on AMP. Relying on a press article dated 19th November 2004 the TPO segregated the AMP expense as an international transaction. He benchmarked the said transaction by applying

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

7 of 40 in terms of which the Assessee was required to promote the B&L brand and to develop marketing intangibles for B&L products in India by incurring expenditure on AMP. Relying on a press article dated 19th November 2004 the TPO segregated the AMP expense as an international transaction. He benchmarked the said transaction by applying

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

7 of 40 in terms of which the Assessee was required to promote the B&L brand and to develop marketing intangibles for B&L products in India by incurring expenditure on AMP. Relying on a press article dated 19th November 2004 the TPO segregated the AMP expense as an international transaction. He benchmarked the said transaction by applying

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

7 of 40 in terms of which the Assessee was required to promote the B&L brand and to develop marketing intangibles for B&L products in India by incurring expenditure on AMP. Relying on a press article dated 19th November 2004 the TPO segregated the AMP expense as an international transaction. He benchmarked the said transaction by applying

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

7 of 40 in terms of which the Assessee was required to promote the B&L brand and to develop marketing intangibles for B&L products in India by incurring expenditure on AMP. Relying on a press article dated 19th November 2004 the TPO segregated the AMP expense as an international transaction. He benchmarked the said transaction by applying

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

7 of 40 in terms of which the Assessee was required to promote the B&L brand and to develop marketing intangibles for B&L products in India by incurring expenditure on AMP. Relying on a press article dated 19th November 2004 the TPO segregated the AMP expense as an international transaction. He benchmarked the said transaction by applying

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

7 of 40 in terms of which the Assessee was required to promote the B&L brand and to develop marketing intangibles for B&L products in India by incurring expenditure on AMP. Relying on a press article dated 19th November 2004 the TPO segregated the AMP expense as an international transaction. He benchmarked the said transaction by applying

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

7) comparable companies, and wrongful exclusion of 2 comparable companies. 32. The Ld. AR submitted that all the companies introduced by the TPO are 23 Samsung India Electronics. service providers and are not engaged in any sort of buy-sell activity, whereas the assessee is a trader who supplies telecom equipment to its customer (Reliance) wherein it performs buy-sell

UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INOCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

7,27,37,023/- was made on substantive basis by applying TNMM Intensity approach and further addition of ₹ 48,61,72,050/- was made on protective basis by applying bright line test (“BLT”). The assessee has also challenged the action of the AO/TPO in selecting the functionally dissimilar companies as comparable for determination of BLT adjustment and further challenged

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances no orders as to

7 of 30 12. The following questions were addressed by the Division Bench in Sony Ericsson (supra): “(i) Whether the additions suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of Advertising/Marketing and Promotion Expenses (AMP Expenses' for short) was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law as no specific reference was made by the Assessing Officer, having regard to retrospective amendment

DLF URBAN PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE,7(1),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs Dlf Urban Pvt. Ltd., Circle 7(1), 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015 Pan: Aafcd3019C Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dlf Urban Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 15, Shivaji Marg, Circle 7(1), New Delhi – 110 015 New Delhi. Pan: Aafcd3019C (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Shri Satyajeet Goel & Shri Rajat Garg, Cas. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.06.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax

7. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the plea and dismissed this additional ground with following relevant findings; “9.4 Law is very clear and unambiguous that the relevant amendment has been made in section 92BA by Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01.04.2017. The impugned transaction had taken place in FY 2015-16. In view of unambiguous

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 263 of the Act. 45 173 In fact, it is pertinent to note that section 263 nowhere refers to an assessment order passed by the NaFAC under section 144B of the Faceless Assessment Scheme to be subjected to revisionary jurisdiction. It only confers revisionary jurisdiction to revise any order passed by the ‘Assessing Officer’ or the ‘Transfer Pricing Officer

TATA STEEL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF ANGUL ENERGY LIMITED),DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 93CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is illegal and bad in law in view of amendment to section 92BA of the Act vide Finance Act 2017. 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the, the reference made

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

transfer pricing provisions were not at all applicable in the relevant assessment year in so far as the appellant had undertaken transactions only with domestic entities. Thus, there was no requirement for the appellant to file Form 3CEB and the PCIT has erroneously drawn adverse inference in this regard without even verifying basic facts