MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

transfer pricing provisions. The meaning assigned to ‘international transaction’ in terms of Clause (iv) of Section 92B was inclusive and not limited to the types of transactions in sub-clauses A to C and E of Clause (i). The bright line test was a way of finding out the cost and value of the international transaction, which was the first

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

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

9 of 40 order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT being ITA No. 3861/Del/2010. 15. For the other AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 similar orders were passed on the same basis. Order of the Special Bench of the ITAT 16. At this stage, it is required to be noticed that the Special Bench

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

9 of 40 order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT being ITA No. 3861/Del/2010. 15. For the other AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 similar orders were passed on the same basis. Order of the Special Bench of the ITAT 16. At this stage, it is required to be noticed that the Special Bench

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

9 of 40 order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT being ITA No. 3861/Del/2010. 15. For the other AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 similar orders were passed on the same basis. Order of the Special Bench of the ITAT 16. At this stage, it is required to be noticed that the Special Bench

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

9 of 40 order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT being ITA No. 3861/Del/2010. 15. For the other AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 similar orders were passed on the same basis. Order of the Special Bench of the ITAT 16. At this stage, it is required to be noticed that the Special Bench

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

9 of 40 order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT being ITA No. 3861/Del/2010. 15. For the other AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 similar orders were passed on the same basis. Order of the Special Bench of the ITAT 16. At this stage, it is required to be noticed that the Special Bench

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

9 of 40 order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT being ITA No. 3861/Del/2010. 15. For the other AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 similar orders were passed on the same basis. Order of the Special Bench of the ITAT 16. At this stage, it is required to be noticed that the Special Bench

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

9 of 40 order, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT being ITA No. 3861/Del/2010. 15. For the other AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 similar orders were passed on the same basis. Order of the Special Bench of the ITAT 16. At this stage, it is required to be noticed that the Special Bench

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

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.

transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO had vide a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 17 September 2018 rejected the TNMM analysis (aggregated approach) adopted by the assessee. Instead, the TPO chose to apply the CUP method and thereby proposed three third party royalty agreements (with an ALP of 1.50%). This SCN was responded to vide 33 Samsung India Electronics. submission dated

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

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)

9. Sub-section (3) of section 144B of the Act, provides the scope and role of various units under faceless assessment such as National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Regional Faceless Assessment Centres, Assessment Units (AU), Verification Units (VU), Technical Units (TU) and Review Unit (RU). The relevant role of Technical Units (TU) as defined in clause (v) of sub-section

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by applying the parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India (P) Ltd.?” 13. The summary of the conclusions of the Division Bench in Sony Ericsson (supra) was as under: (i) The Court concurred with the majority of the Special Bench

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

9. As with regard to the first issue, Ld. CIT(A) observed as follows; “10. In ground no. 2, the appellant has challenged the transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of payment for development rights on the ground that the same is shown as part of inventory i.e. capitalised in the books and not debited to the P&L account

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

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