(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

9 CPCD 20 2 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

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

9 paid by the assessee to the AEs, placing the case squarely within the four corners of Section 92(3). 13. The arguments advanced before this Court appears to divide this issue in two parts: first, whether services have indeed been provided by CWHK and CWS to the assessee, and second, whether these services ought to be benchmarked to determine

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)

9. Royalties and technical 559814477 TNMM fees received 10. Contract manufacturing 108636205 TNMM services availed 11. According to the Transfer pricing Study Report (hereinafter referred to in short as ‗TP Report‘) submitted it was mentioned that appellant is a manufacturer who is exposed to normal risk such as risk for success and failure of the business operations

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

9,40,17,116 Processing Services 2.6 In the Transfer Pricing study, the assessee had followed the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) to substantiate the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of above disclosed international transaction/s pertaining to provision of ITES Services with its deemed AE and accordingly it compared the net operating profit/total cost (OP/TC) earned by it with

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

9,40,17,116 Processing Services 2.6 In the Transfer Pricing study, the assessee had followed the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) to substantiate the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of above disclosed international transaction/s pertaining to provision of ITES Services with its deemed AE and accordingly it compared the net operating profit/total cost (OP/TC) earned by it with

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

9,40,17,116 Processing Services 2.6 In the Transfer Pricing study, the assessee had followed the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) to substantiate the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of above disclosed international transaction/s pertaining to provision of ITES Services with its deemed AE and accordingly it compared the net operating profit/total cost (OP/TC) earned by it with

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

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

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]

9,40,17,116 2.6 In the Transfer Pricing study, the assessee had followed the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) to substantiate the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of above disclosed international transaction/s pertaining to provision of ITES Services with its deemed AE and accordingly it compared the net operating profit/total cost (OP/TC) earned by it with the mean OP/TC

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 :

9,40,17,116 2.6 In the Transfer Pricing study, the assessee had followed the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) to substantiate the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of above disclosed international transaction/s pertaining to provision of ITES Services with its deemed AE and accordingly it compared the net operating profit/total cost (OP/TC) earned by it with the mean OP/TC

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

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 Risk √ - ASSETS USED 20. Tangible Assets √ - 21. Intangible Assets - √ 6.2. Admittedly, assessee is a joint venture between Yakult Honsha

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S XANSA INDIA LTD., NOIDA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 40a(ia)of the I.T. Act". 3. First we deal with the appeal of the revenue. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, Xansa India Limited, a subsidiary of Xansa PLC, UK software Service Company, provides services of system integration, enterprise solution and business process outsourcing services. The 99.276% of the shares of the assessee company

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

9. Thereafter, he pointed out that one of the main allegations of the Ld. CIT with respect to claim of deduction 80 IA is that, Assessing Officer has failed to conduct any enquiry or investigation. Such an observation is completely divorced from the fact, because, during the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has raised various queries

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

9 ITA No.7167/Del./2019 [Addition of Rs. 3,66,82,337/-]” 6.5 The one of the ground taken by the AO for invoking section 40A(2)(b) is the agreement between the parties has not been registered. In our opinion, an unregistered agreement cannot be a ground for invoking provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act in absence

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VRV BREWERIES & BOTTELING

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

transfer pricing. Accordingly, he disallowed a sum of ` 24,70,929/- out of the total sum claimed, i.e., ` 84,01,160/- under Section 40A(2) of the I.T. Act. As regards the balance sum, i.e., ` 59,30,231/- (84,01,160 – 24,70,929) he applied the provisions of Section 35A of the I.T. Act. Thus in consonance with