PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

transfer pricing provisions enshrined in Chapter X of the Act do not seek to benchmark transactions between two Indian enterprises.” 6. As is manifest from the above, the Tribunal was constrained to interfere with the view expressed by the TPO, bearing in mind a failure on the part of the Department to have alluded or referred to any arrangement which

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

6. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order u/s 92CA (3) of The Income Tax Act on 31st of March 2004 wherein only dispute was with respect to the market support services agreement of the assessee. 7. The assessee has entered into an agreement with BBC worldwide Ltd to act as an exclusive agent for marketing and distribution

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Transfer Pricing Officer” occurring in Section 92CA of the Act signified that discretion was vested in the Assessing Officer and it would not be mandatory in every single case that he must refer the issue of computation of the Arm’s Length Price to the TPO3. 15 Meneta Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. 6

(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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MENTOR GRAPHICS (NOIDA) PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed

6 of 26 international transaction for which the arm’s length price is to be determined. 7. Upon the filing of the return by the respondent/assessee, the assessing officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section

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

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)

transfer pricing officer’s action on taking average of assessee’s internal cup as the rate at which power was purchased from JVVNL and rates obtained from IEX by invoking the provisions of Section 133 (6

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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TPO') adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Prices (CUP) method. In the process, the assessee had presented two sets of prices claiming them to be comparable. One set of transactions relied on by the assessee was supplied by Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year

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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TPO') adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Prices (CUP) method. In the process, the assessee had presented two sets of prices claiming them to be comparable. One set of transactions relied on by the assessee was supplied by Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year

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 stated that despite giving ample opportunity to the Assessee the B G Exploration & Production India Limited V DCIT ITA No 1170/Del/2015 DCIT V B G Exploration & Production India Limited ITA No 1581/Del/2015 AY 2010-11 requisite details were not submitted, and further the notices sent to the JV partners under section 133 (6

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" occurring in Section 92CA of the Act signified that discretion was vested in the Assessing Officer and it would not be mandatory in every single case that he must refer the issue of computation of the Arm's Length Price to the TPO3. 6

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" occurring in Section 92CA of the Act signified that discretion was vested in the Assessing Officer and it would not be mandatory in every single case that he must refer the issue of computation of the Arm's Length Price to the TPO3. 6

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 ATOTECH INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee with respect to the above issue is allowed with above direction

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Atotech India Ltd, Acit, 66, Km Stone, Nh-8, Gurgaon Circle, Vs. Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm0338G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92 of the income tax act and the jurisdiction of the Ld. transfer pricing officer. He further submitted that the entire transfer pricing provisions as contained in chapter X of the act will apply only when income arises from an international transactions, which has to be between the 2 nonresidents, or Page 6

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

transfer pricing analysis as contemplated under Section 92; to the contrary, it accepted the assessee’s stated return (absent any benchmarking) as the true and correct value under an implicit (and incorrect) understanding of Section 92(3). 30. As regards the costs incurred by CWHK, a further issue arises. Whilst the costs incurred by Mr. Braganza

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

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, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACR0127N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Date of pronouncement 25/04/2016 Assessee by: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.and Ms. Deepanvee Rao,Adv. on corporate tax issues 2. Sh. Rahul Mitra, C.A. with Sh. Derendra Gulari, C.A and Sh. Vinay Verma, C.A. on transfer pricing issues Revenue by: Shri Amrendra

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 133 (6