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

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

83, 904 from the AE, which ought to be considered as an international transaction of rendering buying support services to AE under the Transfer Pricing provisions under Sections

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 I4A.” 15. Now, we first take up the transfer pricing issue. The first ground of appeal is against action of the lower authorities disregarding and ignoring comparable uncontrolled price submitted for international transactions pertaining to purchase of machinery of Rs.40,55,59,818/-. 18 ITA No.1482/Del./2015 16. The brief facts of this issue are that for the purpose

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)

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer free of cost or at concessional rate to his employees (including former employee or employees)' shall be taken as fringe benefit. The Explanation to this clause clarifies that for the purposes of this clause,—(i) 'specified security' means the securities as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation

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)

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer free of cost or at concessional rate to his employees (including former employee or employees)' shall be taken as fringe benefit. The Explanation to this clause clarifies that for the purposes of this clause,—(i) 'specified security' means the securities as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation

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

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 adjustment proposed by the TPO. In this regard it is noted by the Ld DRP that tax department has filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex 15 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Court and, thereafter, to the extent the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony

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 adjustment proposed by the TPO. In this regard it is noted by the Ld DRP that tax department has filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex 15 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Court and, thereafter, to the extent the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony

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 adjustment proposed by the TPO. In this regard it is noted by the Ld DRP that tax department has filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex 15 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Court and, thereafter, to the extent the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sony

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 adjustment made by the TPO in respect of the international transactions of (i) export of steel products aggregating to Rs. 2,47,83,673 (ii) interest on loan of Rs. 70,95,787 and (iii) commission on corporate guarantee of Rs. Rs. 2,29,74,981 on the basis of the order passed under section

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 adjustment made by the TPO in respect of the international transactions of (i) export of steel products aggregating to Rs. 2,47,83,673 (ii) interest on loan of Rs. 70,95,787 and (iii) commission on corporate guarantee of Rs. Rs. 2,29,74,981 on the basis of the order passed under section

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. Likewise, payments for use of patents or copyrights are separately assessed. What the present appeals are concerned with is only the AMP expenditure incurred and nothing more. As pointed out by the Revenue the issue is not about the expenditure incurred by MSIL in engaging Indian third parties for AMP but the extent to which the AMP spend

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. Likewise, payments for use of patents or copyrights are separately assessed. What the present appeals are concerned with is only the AMP expenditure incurred and nothing more. As pointed out by the Revenue the issue is not about the expenditure incurred by MSIL in engaging Indian third parties for AMP but the extent to which the AMP spend

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

section 144C(5) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“the TPO”). 3. That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in holding that arms length price of the international transactions regarding payment of trademark fees of Rs. 2,83

TRANSCEND MT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishitranscend Mt Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Heartland Income Tax, Information & Consultancy Circle-25(2), Services Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi Plot No. 1/1, Arakere, Bannerghata Road, Bangalore Pan: Aabch2275E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 117 of the Act. Therefore the definition of the Joint Commissioner includes the Additional Commissioner also. In view of this, additional ground raised by the assessee does not have any merit. Hence dismissed. 13. Adverting to the various other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the learned authorised representative submitted a chart and stated that it is challenging

STERIA (INDIA) LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer price legislation. 3.3.2(2) For determining Top-up invoice: “Revenue" is defined as inclusive of (a) Revenue as per clause 3.3.1 (b) Foreign exchange currency gain/loss if any (c) Other income earned out of regular business operations and (d) Top-up value to arrive at agreed return. Non-operational and other income, if any will be excluded for determining

STERIA INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAQL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer price legislation. 3.3.2(2) For determining Top-up invoice: “Revenue" is defined as inclusive of (a) Revenue as per clause 3.3.1 (b) Foreign exchange currency gain/loss if any (c) Other income earned out of regular business operations and (d) Top-up value to arrive at agreed return. Non-operational and other income, if any will be excluded for determining

M/S STERIA NDIA LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer price legislation. 3.3.2(2) For determining Top-up invoice: “Revenue" is defined as inclusive of (a) Revenue as per clause 3.3.1 (b) Foreign exchange currency gain/loss if any (c) Other income earned out of regular business operations and (d) Top-up value to arrive at agreed return. Non-operational and other income, if any will be excluded for determining