(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

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

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)

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

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

7,838 3 15,118 The details of sales made by the AE to the independent third parties and to the Assessee as Annexure 3 to submission dated 10 July 2013. (Page 579 to 607 of the paper book) In addition to the above, the Assessee also shall submit the copies of the invoices for the machinery sold

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

7 reimbursement of costs to CWHK for services rendered by Mr. Ashpreet Choudhary. 9. In respect of this issue, the following question of law arises for the Court’s consideration: “Is the Tribunal correct in holding that benchmarking was not necessary in respect of the cost reimbursement reported by the assessee that was later subject to disallowance

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)

transfer pricing for developing countries had observed that ‗It may be the local or the foreign party‘, we tend to agree with the same.‖ 34. Above decision reproduced by us covers many divergent views of the coordinate benches and after considering them coordinate bench has reiterated all the principles noted by us for selection of tested party. Hence, we also

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

7 and 8.” 19 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) 4. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently opposed the submissions made by the Ld. AR. By relying on the orders passed by the TPO and the Ld. DRP it was submitted by him that the lower authorities have, for fair reasons, concluded

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

7 and 8.” 19 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) 4. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently opposed the submissions made by the Ld. AR. By relying on the orders passed by the TPO and the Ld. DRP it was submitted by him that the lower authorities have, for fair reasons, concluded

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

7 and 8.” 19 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) 4. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently opposed the submissions made by the Ld. AR. By relying on the orders passed by the TPO and the Ld. DRP it was submitted by him that the lower authorities have, for fair reasons, concluded

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

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

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]

7. Replying to the afore-stated notice, the assessee contended that in order to cover a transaction within the ambit of Chapter X, the transaction must be an international transaction and the definition of the international transaction has been defined u/s 92B of the Act. Referring to the relevant provisions, the assessee stated that nothing has been brought on record

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 :

7. It was noticed that assessee had incurred expenditure on advertisement promotion, the details of which are as under: Particulars Amount (in INR) Advertisement & Promotion 92,29,925 Incentive paid 10,99,36,525 Total AMP Expenditure 11,91,66,450 8. AO noted that the aforesaid expenditure of Rs.11.91 crore (rounded off) has been incurred by the assessee

M/S YAKULT DANONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Yakult Danone India P Ltd. D.C.I.T. Circle 27(1) 16, 1St Floor Vs. New Delhi Community Centre Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I New Delhi

7. Local production of Milk √ - 8. Local Sales √ - Promotion ITA 996/Del/2016 AY: 2011-12 Yakult Danone India Private Limited 9. Local Quality √ - Control 10. General √ - Management Functions RISKS BORNE 11. Market Risk √ - 12.Customer Credit √ - Risk 13. Foreign Exchange √ - Risk 14. Capacity √ - Utilisation Risk 15. Man Power Risk √ - 16. Price Risk √ - 17. Research and - √ Development Risk 18. Technology Risk - √ 19. Inventory

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

40A(3) of I.T. Act, 1961. 3(i). That on facts and circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs. 25,000/- on ground of non-deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act, 1961. (ii) That there is no case of applicability of TDS provisions on nature of payments

ETT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIAN EXPRESS MULTIMEDIA LTD),NEW DELHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL-II, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14

40A, Chapter VI-A and section 10AA. Domestic transfer pricing provisions are applicable from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards.  Further, Instruction No.3/2016 is an amendment of earlier circulars; therefore, this should be read in the earlier circular. 19. Drawing our attention to the Circular no.3/2016, she submitted that for proper administration of transfer pricing issues, the Board has decided that

DE DIAMOND ELECTRIC INDIA PVT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE - 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

7. The Learned Counsel of the assessee argued that in the case of the assessee the transaction of the royalty expenses between the assessee and its Associated Enterprises (AEs), is international transaction and therefore its arm’s-length price can be determined only under the transfer pricing provisions and not under the provision of the section 40A

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,20,89,180, by applying a markup of 7.77%, 4.13% and 18.24%, being the NP of Dharuhera, Gurgaon and Neemrana units respectively, to the purchases of Rs.14.71 crores, 25.68 crores and Rs.2.88 lacs made from the respective units by applying the provisions of section 80IA(8) read with section 80IC(7