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

9. Referring to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, Edition 2010, the TPO formed a belief that investment in marketing intangibles is derived from amongst other company‟s level of AMP, particularly those that transcend from routine cost. The TPO was of the opinion that agent should be reimbursed or compensated for this additional

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

9. Consequently order u/s 143 (3) of the income tax act was passed on 4/2/2005, wherein the above adjustment was made along with the addition on account of the exchange rate variation of INR 7426280/–. Accordingly total income was computed at INR 12592119/–. Subsequently assessee preferred an application under section 154 of the income tax act before the learned transfer

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. However, the following expressions employed in Instruction

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

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

The appeal is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm's length price in relation to the international transaction [or specified domestic transaction] in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 92C and send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee.” 9

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 (3) by the Transfer Pricing Officer.” 30. It would be useful to recollect that the IT Act draws heavily from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Model Tax Convention‟s interpretation under Article 9

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 7 8 9

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 7 8 9

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

9,97,47,889 and therefore proposed an adjustment of INR 1,09,82,272/–. Accordingly he passed the order under section 92CA (3) of the act on 20/1/2014. Incorporating the above adjustment proposed by Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) the learned transfer pricing

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

9,97,47,889 and therefore proposed an adjustment of INR 1,09,82,272/–. Accordingly he passed the order under section 92CA (3) of the act on 20/1/2014. Incorporating the above adjustment proposed by Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) the learned transfer pricing

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

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 143 (3 ) of the act on 27. 12 2008 determining the total income of Rs. 62273895/– against the loss return of Rs. 26825833/- filed by the assessee incorporating the adjustment proposed by the Ld. transfer pricing officer of Rs. 89099728./-. 9

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

9. Thus if the transaction is one of leasing/hiring/letting simpliciter under which the possession of the goods, i.e., effective and general control of the goods is to be given to the customer and the customer has the freedom and choice of selecting the manner, time and nature of use and enjoyment, though within the frame work of the agreement, then

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) erred in violating provisions of Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") read with Rule 10C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules"), in disregarding and ignoring the Comparable Uncontrolled Price('CUP’) submitted for international transactions pertaining to purchase of machinery of Rs. 40,55,59,818. 2. On the facts

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

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)

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation; and b. Determining the arm's length margins / prices using data pertaining only to financial Year ("FY") 2011 -12 which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the Indian TP documentation requirements 6. The learned TPO / AO / DRP have erred in rejecting certain comparable companies selected by the Appellant in respect

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)

Transfer Pricing (‗TP‘) documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‗Rules‘); not accepting the overseas Associated Enterprises (‗AEs‘) 2.2 ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 3 of 134 as the tested party, being the least complex