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)

4) , New Delhi [ The Ld Transfer Pricing Officer, TPO ] after obtaining necessary approval of The Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Delhi. On reference, The TPO examined international transaction as reported in form number 3CEB submitted by the assessee. On 6/6/2011, the ld AO informed about corporate guarantee issued by the appellant to its subsidiary and therefore asked

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBC WORLD INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4), New Delhi passed draft assessment order dated 30/11/2009 u/s 143 read with section 144C of the act proposing an addition of Rs 22048880/– in pursuance of the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel where the transfer pricing adjustment suggested by the learned transfer pricing officer of Rs. 22048880/– was confirmed by the learned dispute resolution panel.. 41

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

4) of section 92C having regard to the arm‟s length price determined under sub-section (3) by the Transfer Pricing Officer.” 30. It would be useful to recollect that the IT Act draws heavily from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Model Tax Convention‟s interpretation under Article 9. In terms ofArticle 9, when conditions are made

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

transfer pricing provisions to a transaction, which comes to his notice, in respect of which the assessee has not furnished a report under Section 92E of the Act. Amendment by the Finance Act, 2012 incorporating Sub-Section 2B to Section 92CA was retrospective and applicable with effect from 1st June, 2002. Thus, the TPO could have examined the unreported international

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

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

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

4) of the Act, after the 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

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

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 144C of the income tax act 1961 on 28th of February 2014 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 332,007,300 against the returned income of ₹ 4,10,27,920/– wherein the following three additions were made i. addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment Rs 4 41

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 144C of the income tax act 1961 on 28th of February 2014 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 332,007,300 against the returned income of ₹ 4,10,27,920/– wherein the following three additions were made i. addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment Rs 4 41

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

4) of section 92CA. (ii) Role of Transfer Pricing Officer: The role of the TPO begins after a reference is received from the Assessing Officer. In terms of section92CA this role is limited to the determination of arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction(s) referred to him by the Assessing Officer - - - - - - The price

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 (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections

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

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

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. 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, 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