LI & FUNG INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order dated 25/11/11 of the ITAT Tribunal, Delhi Branch

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 92C of IT Act. As per this provision, the arm‟s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by the „most appropriate method‟ out of the prescribed methods i.e. a) comparable uncontrolled price method; b) resale price method; c) cost plus method; d) transactional net margin method; e) profit split method and f) any method

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing officer. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions. 39. The ground number 3 and ground number 4 of the appeal are with respect to the several issues raised by the assessee. However, before us no arguments were advanced and therefore, both these grounds are dismissed. Noble Resources & Training India

NOBLE RESOURCE & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing officer. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions. 39. The ground number 3 and ground number 4 of the appeal are with respect to the several issues raised by the assessee. However, before us no arguments were advanced and therefore, both these grounds are dismissed. Noble Resources & Training India

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 92CA of the act. 06. As stated, that assessee mostly had Specified Domestic Transactions [SDT]. Assessee has shown transfer of power and steam from eligible unit to non-eligible unit during the year. 07. Assessee has shown the transfer of the power as per its transfer pricing study report from eligible unit to non-eligible unit as Under :- Transferor

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 92C, the arm 's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely:— (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,— (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number

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)

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer free of cost or at concessional rate to his employees (including former employee or employees)' shall be taken as fringe benefit. The Explanation to this clause clarifies that for the purposes of this clause,—(i) 'specified security' means the securities as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation

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)

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer free of cost or at concessional rate to his employees (including former employee or employees)' shall be taken as fringe benefit. The Explanation to this clause clarifies that for the purposes of this clause,—(i) 'specified security' means the securities as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm's length price at nil under section 92CA(3). Hence this argument is devoid of merit.” Indeed, a Division Bench of this Court, in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Anr., [2007] 288 ITR 52 (Delhi) (albeit considering the law prior to the 2007 amendment to the Act), concurred

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)

section 92 otiose and the definition of ‗internal transaction‘ u/s 92B and rule 10B redundant. This is patently an unacceptable position having no sanction of the Indian transfer pricing law. Borrowing a contrary mandate of the TP provisions of other countries and reading it into our provisions is not permissible. The requirement under our law is to compute the income

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

41 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Explanation to section 92B There is, however, one more aspect of the matter for which the impugned arm's length price adjustment must be deleted. (paragraph 19) It is noted that everything hinges on application of the Explanation to section 92B, vide Finance Act, 2012, though with retrospective

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

41 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Explanation to section 92B There is, however, one more aspect of the matter for which the impugned arm's length price adjustment must be deleted. (paragraph 19) It is noted that everything hinges on application of the Explanation to section 92B, vide Finance Act, 2012, though with retrospective

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

41 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Explanation to section 92B There is, however, one more aspect of the matter for which the impugned arm's length price adjustment must be deleted. (paragraph 19) It is noted that everything hinges on application of the Explanation to section 92B, vide Finance Act, 2012, though with retrospective

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]

41,243 Cumulative addition Rs 101,50,70,775 2.8 Being aggrieved by the above proposed transfer pricing adjustment, the assessee filed detailed objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP, while referring to decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications reported in 374 ITR 118(Del), has examined the contentions

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer noted that assessee has given a bank guarantee of ₹ 10827.5 lakhs on behalf of its associated enterprise and it has charged ₹ 149.21 lakhs for providing the corporate guarantee to its associated enterprise. The assessee benchmarks the above transaction applying the CUP method. The learned TPO for verification of the applicable rate sought information under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer noted that assessee has given a bank guarantee of ₹ 10827.5 lakhs on behalf of its associated enterprise and it has charged ₹ 149.21 lakhs for providing the corporate guarantee to its associated enterprise. The assessee benchmarks the above transaction applying the CUP method. The learned TPO for verification of the applicable rate sought information under section

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 Officer by applying the parameters specified in paragraph17.4 of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT? 32. However, on the next date i.e. 30th October 2014, the Court was of the view that the said appeal should be de-linked and passed the following order

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 Officer by applying the parameters specified in paragraph17.4 of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT? 32. However, on the next date i.e. 30th October 2014, the Court was of the view that the said appeal should be de-linked and passed the following order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

41(1). When we do so, what we find from clause (a) is that in order to invoke the section, it must be first established that the assessee had obtained some benefit in respect of the trading ITA No.774/2009 Page 12 of 31 liability which was earlier allowed as a deduction. There is no dispute in the present case that