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 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

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

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)

42 (SC) Stating that the OECD commentary continues to have persuasive value for determining the arm’s-length price for transfer pricing regulation. vii. He further submitted that in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1997 – 98 the assessee has been using the methodology of benchmarking the transaction of transfer of power by using the internal cup method which

M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibg Exploration & Production Jcit, India Ltd, International Taxation, Bg House, Dehradun Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Bg Exploration & Production International Taxation, India Ltd, Bg House, Lake Dehradun Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Vs. Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm‘s length price at rupees Nil , the balance sum of Rs. 11374089/– was disallowed. 9. During the year the Assessee has claimed that the wellhead platforms amounting to Rs. 958938038/– are liable for depreciation / deduction at the rate of hundred percent as deduction. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that

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

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 92C (3) without making reference to the TPO. Thus the action of the AO is upheld.‖ 42. Further with respect to the determination of the arm‘s length price, he referred to the order of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel in case of the assessee for assessment year 2009 – 10. He held that the learned DRP has observed that

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 92C (3) without making reference to the TPO. Thus the action of the AO is upheld.‖ 42. Further with respect to the determination of the arm‘s length price, he referred to the order of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel in case of the assessee for assessment year 2009 – 10. He held that the learned DRP has observed that

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)

42 of 134 dollar denominated LIBO [London Inter Bank Operative] rate plus mark up of 3%. When the issue landed up before the DRP, the DRP had, after analyzing the issue, directed the AO/TPO to compute the interest on loans to AE @ 14% per annum thereby enhanced the transfer pricing adjustment. Aggrieved assessee took up the issue with the Tribunal

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

42,075 Rs 24,01,12,542 Cumulative addition Rs 101,50,70,775 Rs 114,89,41,243 11 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) 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

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

42,075 Rs 24,01,12,542 Cumulative addition Rs 101,50,70,775 Rs 114,89,41,243 11 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) 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

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

42,075 Rs 24,01,12,542 Cumulative addition Rs 101,50,70,775 Rs 114,89,41,243 11 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) 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

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]

42,075 Rs 24,01,12,542 Rs 114,89,41,243 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

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

pricing of a product is a very subjective exercise and is true value, as received by the receiver, can differ from that received by others in the market place. Thus, CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along the following dimensions: (i) Quality of the product or service; (ii) Contractual terms (example, scope and terms of warranties provided, sale

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

pricing of a product is a very subjective exercise and is true value, as received by the receiver, can differ from that received by others in the market place. Thus, CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along the following dimensions: (i) Quality of the product or service; (ii) Contractual terms (example, scope and terms of warranties provided, sale

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