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

Section 92C(2) of the Act while determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Appellant; 2.8. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts by not allowing the Appellant the adjustment for differences in the material items reported in the financial statements of the Appellant as compared to those of the comparable companies

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances? 4. If answer to question Nos.2 and 3 is in favour

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

6. Scheduling risk Not disclosed in transfer pricing report but actually borne by assessee. 7. Government & institutional risk Not disclosed in transfer pricing report but actually borne by assessee. 8. Operational risk Not disclosed in transfer pricing report but actually borne by assessee. 9. Asset redundancy risk Not disclosed in transfer pricing report but actually borne by assessee. 10. Infrastructure

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)

43. Further in case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 the learned CIT – capital has rejected the action of the learned transfer pricing officer of determining the arm’s-length price of steam at nil and upheld the assessee’s approach of benchmarking the transfer price of steam at cost. This order has been accepted by the revenue

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer {hereinafter referred to as the “TPO”} had vide order dated 14th September 2011 accepted the ALP of all International Transactions undertaken by the appellant. 3.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition on account of alleged “Transaction” / “International Transaction” of issue of Corporate Guarantee without appreciating that there

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer {hereinafter referred to as the “TPO”} had vide order dated 14th September 2011 accepted the ALP of all International Transactions undertaken by the appellant. 3.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition on account of alleged “Transaction” / “International Transaction” of issue of Corporate Guarantee without appreciating that there

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

6 15682 368 09 13.1 146.243 Hong Kong 12006 5 3.26% 429285 1 16.3% 6874 11489 183 63 6.5 124.770 Kore a 24252 0.66% 324499 2 12.4% 1389 8685 100 73 3.6 47.784 Sing apore 13378 2 3.63% 165523 9 6.3% 7659 4430 120 89 4.3 47.926 C& W Asia

MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 14 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Circle-16(2) 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Vatika Business Park, New Delhi Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent)

6 of order of ld. Transfer Pricing officer wherein employee profile of company is considered. He made a specific reference that Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer has considered employee profile of the McKinsey India and not of assessee and therefore whole discussion about employee profile and its correlation with employee details of assessee becomes irrelevant. After referring to functional profile

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

section 234B and 234C of the act which is consequential in nature, no arguments advanced on it, therefore same is also dismissed. 33. Now we deal with the first issue of Transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the arm‘s-length price of export of stainless steel made by the assessee to its associated

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

section 234B and 234C of the act which is consequential in nature, no arguments advanced on it, therefore same is also dismissed. 33. Now we deal with the first issue of Transfer pricing adjustment made by the learned assessing officer with respect to the arm‘s-length price of export of stainless steel made by the assessee to its associated

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)

6. Market research and 863649036 TNMM support services availed 7. Provision of technical 76325310 TNMM services ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 15 of 134 8. Technical services availed 59740808 TNMM 9. Royalties and technical 559814477 TNMM fees received 10. Contract manufacturing 108636205 TNMM services availed 11. According to the Transfer pricing Study

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

transfer pricing related provision which is in the nature of a SAAR (specific anti- abuse rule), and that every anti-abuse legislation, whether SAAR (specific anti-abuse rule) or GAAR (general anti-abuse rule), is a legislation seeking the taxpayers to organise their affairs in a manner compliant with the norms set out in such anti-abuse legislation. An anti

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

transfer pricing related provision which is in the nature of a SAAR (specific anti- abuse rule), and that every anti-abuse legislation, whether SAAR (specific anti-abuse rule) or GAAR (general anti-abuse rule), is a legislation seeking the taxpayers to organise their affairs in a manner compliant with the norms set out in such anti-abuse legislation. An anti

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

transfer pricing related provision which is in the nature of a SAAR (specific anti- abuse rule), and that every anti-abuse legislation, whether SAAR (specific anti-abuse rule) or GAAR (general anti-abuse rule), is a legislation seeking the taxpayers to organise their affairs in a manner compliant with the norms set out in such anti-abuse legislation. An anti

BT E- SERV (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 99/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Bt E-Serv (India) Pvt. Ltd, Ito, 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Ward-5(2), Vs. Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcb2533M (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. the learned AO / TPO / DRP have erred in selecting certain companies which are earning super normal profits as comparable to the Appellant. 7. the learned AO / TPO / DRP have cherry picked comparables with the sole objective of rejecting comparables selected by the appellant and arriving at functionally incomparable companies showing skewed results. 8. the learned TPO/ AO/ DRP have