THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 2(iii) approval in view of the interim order dated 10th January, 2017 of the Division Bench of this Court. However, this does not, in any manner, confer any right upon the petitioner. Similarly, the communication dated 20th October, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Mines does not come to the aid of the petitioner. By the said communication

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

2, last para). However in the same paragraph it is noted by the Ld. CIT (DR) that “the Transfer Pricing Officer noticed that expenditure in respect of AMP expenses incurred by the assessee were also within the realm of international transaction and he accordingly determined the arm’s length price of these expenses in his order.” 6. The impugned judgment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANKITECH PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

6. However, in further appeal before the Tribunal, the appeal of the assessee has been allotted vide impugned order dated 06.06.2008 thereby deleting the addition made by the AO on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity ‗the Tribunal‘) held that though the amount received by the assessee

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

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

2) of section 288; Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 15:09:32 Signature Not Verified ITA 155/2022 & 156/2022 Page 5 of 38 (ii) "arm's length price" means a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions; (iii) "enterprise" means a person (including

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

2) of section 288; Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 15:09:32 Signature Not Verified ITA 155/2022 & 156/2022 Page 5 of 38 (ii) "arm's length price" means a price which is applied or proposed to be applied in a transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions; (iii) "enterprise" means a person (including

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

2. Whether AMP Expenses incurred by the assessee in India can be treated and categorized as an international transaction under 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

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 92CA of the said Act for determination of the arm’s length price. At this juncture it would be relevant

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

2. In terms of the provisions, any income arising from an international transaction or specified domestic transaction between two or more associated enterprises shall be computed having regard to the Arm’s Length Price. Instruction No. 3 was issued on 20th May, 2003 to provide guidance to the Transfer Pricing Officers and the Assessing Officers to operationalise the transfer pricing

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

2. Service liability Disclosed in transfer pricing report 3. Capacity utilization risk Disclosed in transfer pricing report ITA 306/2012 Page 8 4. Foreign exchange risk Disclosed in transfer pricing report 5. Credit & collection risk Disclosed in transfer pricing report 6. Scheduling risk Not disclosed in transfer pricing report but actually borne by assessee. 7. Government & institutional risk Not disclosed

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)

2), New Delhi, [learned Transfer Pricing Officer/TPO] to determine the arm’s-length price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee as per the provisions of 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

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

2) of the Act, and was processed under Section 143(1). Since the assessee had entered into international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under Section 92CA(3) of the Act for determination of the arm’s length price (“ALP”) of the transactions. The TPO by an order recommended an increase in the taxable

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

2,40,400 shares of M/s Eltek to the four Directors who are appellants before us. The shares have been transferred equally to all the four directors, i.e., 60,100 shares each. Ld. AO further observed that these shares were transferred at book value of Rs.10 per share. However, since a huge dividend of Rs.1.44 crores was earned

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

2,40,400 shares of M/s Eltek to the four Directors who are appellants before us. The shares have been transferred equally to all the four directors, i.e., 60,100 shares each. Ld. AO further observed that these shares were transferred at book value of Rs.10 per share. However, since a huge dividend of Rs.1.44 crores was earned

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

2,40,400 shares of M/s Eltek to the four Directors who are appellants before us. The shares have been transferred equally to all the four directors, i.e., 60,100 shares each. Ld. AO further observed that these shares were transferred at book value of Rs.10 per share. However, since a huge dividend of Rs.1.44 crores was earned

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

2,40,400 shares of M/s Eltek to the four Directors who are appellants before us. The shares have been transferred equally to all the four directors, i.e., 60,100 shares each. Ld. AO further observed that these shares were transferred at book value of Rs.10 per share. However, since a huge dividend of Rs.1.44 crores was earned

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 119 of the Income-tax Act. ANNEXURE I Register of record to be maintained by Transfer Pricing Officer 1 2 3 4 5 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)

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. ANNEXURE I Register of record to be maintained by Transfer Pricing Officer 1 2 3 4 5 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

2), the most appropriate method, referred to in Section 92C(1), "shall be applied, for determination of arm's length price, in the manner prescribed". Therefore, as long as the method covered by rule 10AB, which is duly covered by Section 92C(1) satisfies the test of being the 'most appropriate method', it can be applied to a fact situation