MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

price for the GK 3 project equal to: ( 4.10% of the FOB Mill value in U.S. Dollar for i the quantity shipped is last (18") Shipment. ) ( GLOBAL SYNERGY INTERNATIONAL LTD agrees a to unconditionally to fulfill the scope set therein ) by the virtue of this addendum. ( This commission is over the above the b commission payable by Welspun to Global

(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. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

9 of 20 referred to the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2011. By virtue of which sub-section (2A) was inserted in Section 92CA with effect from 01.06.2011. He submitted that upon a plain construction of the newly inserted sub-section (2A), it is apparent that Parliament intended to widen the jurisdiction of the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

PARPOOL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 M/S. Parpool Ltd., Vs. Adit, C/O- Mgb Metro Group International Taxation, Buying Hk Ltd. - India Circle -1(2), New Delhi Liaison Office, 40, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan :Aaecm3289J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.4911/Del/2010 & 1473/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Mgb Metro Group Vs. Dit, Buying Hk Ltd., Circle-3(1), International India Liaison Officer, 40, Taxation, Drum Shape Okhla Industrial Estate, Building, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan :Aaecm3289J (Appellant) (Respondent)

pricing is done by the head office/ buyer. 2.1 Without prejudice to the above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order holding that the purchase exemption as per Explanation 1(b) to section 9(1X0 of the Act, which expressly provides that

MGB METRO GROUP BUYING HK LTD- INDIA LIASION OFFICE,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 M/S. Parpool Ltd., Vs. Adit, C/O- Mgb Metro Group International Taxation, Buying Hk Ltd. - India Circle -1(2), New Delhi Liaison Office, 40, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan :Aaecm3289J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.4911/Del/2010 & 1473/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Mgb Metro Group Vs. Dit, Buying Hk Ltd., Circle-3(1), International India Liaison Officer, 40, Taxation, Drum Shape Okhla Industrial Estate, Building, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan :Aaecm3289J (Appellant) (Respondent)

pricing is done by the head office/ buyer. 2.1 Without prejudice to the above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order holding that the purchase exemption as per Explanation 1(b) to section 9(1X0 of the Act, which expressly provides that

MGB METRO GROUP BUYING HK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 M/S. Parpool Ltd., Vs. Adit, C/O- Mgb Metro Group International Taxation, Buying Hk Ltd. - India Circle -1(2), New Delhi Liaison Office, 40, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan :Aaecm3289J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.4911/Del/2010 & 1473/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Mgb Metro Group Vs. Dit, Buying Hk Ltd., Circle-3(1), International India Liaison Officer, 40, Taxation, Drum Shape Okhla Industrial Estate, Building, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan :Aaecm3289J (Appellant) (Respondent)

pricing is done by the head office/ buyer. 2.1 Without prejudice to the above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order holding that the purchase exemption as per Explanation 1(b) to section 9(1X0 of the Act, which expressly provides that

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

1) thus is explicit that the only manner of effecting a transfer pricing adjustment is to substitute the transaction price with the arm's length price so determined. The second proviso to section 92C(2) provides a "gateway" by stipulating that if the variation between the arm's length price and the transaction price does not exceed the specified percentage

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

1) thus is explicit that the only manner of effecting a transfer pricing adjustment is to substitute the transaction price with the arm's length price so determined. The second proviso to section 92C(2) provides a "gateway" by stipulating that if the variation between the arm's length price and the transaction price does not exceed the specified percentage

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. NEW SKIES SATELLITE BV

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of any copyright, literary, artistic or scientific work including films or video tapes for use in connection with ITA 473/2012, 474/2012, 500/2012 & 244/2014 Page 8 television or tapes for use in connection with radio broadcasting, but not including consideration for the sale, distribution or exhibition

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

transferred by Smt. Prem Lata during the F.Y. 2000-01 relevant to the A.Y. 2001-02 and provisions of Subsection 9 (read with explanation 1) of Section 10A of the IT Act are clearly attracted. Further vide its letter dated 21.2.2004, the assessee company have filed a copy of the opinion of M/s Price

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

transferred by Smt. Prem Lata during the F.Y. 2000-01 relevant to the A.Y. 2001-02 and provisions of Subsection 9 (read with explanation 1) of Section 10A of the IT Act are clearly attracted. Further vide its letter dated 21.2.2004, the assessee company have filed a copy of the opinion of M/s Price

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. M/S LUFTHANSA CARGO INDIA P .

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

prices plus a material handling surcharge of twenty five (25) percent. Subcontracted work in the sense of Article 4 of the GTA shall be charged according to the amount payable by Lufthansa Technik to the subcontractor plus a handling charge of ten (10) percent plus transportation costs, if any. In case of repair work the Customer shall pay a minimum

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. M/S LUFTHANSA CARGO INDIA P .

prices plus a material handling surcharge of twenty five (25) percent. Subcontracted work in the sense of Article 4 of the GTA shall be charged according to the amount payable by Lufthansa Technik to the subcontractor plus a handling charge of ten (10) percent plus transportation costs, if any. In case of repair work the Customer shall pay a minimum

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

9(l)(vii) did not apply. Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal after taking into consideration the agreement between the assessee and T and the nature of services provided by T to the assessee. It was a simple case of payment for the provision of a bandwidth. No technical services were rendered by T to the assessee. On a consideration

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

9(l)(vii) did not apply. Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal after taking into consideration the agreement between the assessee and T and the nature of services provided by T to the assessee. It was a simple case of payment for the provision of a bandwidth. No technical services were rendered by T to the assessee. On a consideration

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

9(l)(vii) did not apply. Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal after taking into consideration the agreement between the assessee and T and the nature of services provided by T to the assessee. It was a simple case of payment for the provision of a bandwidth. No technical services were rendered by T to the assessee. On a consideration

ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

9(l)(vii) did not apply. Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal after taking into consideration the agreement between the assessee and T and the nature of services provided by T to the assessee. It was a simple case of payment for the provision of a bandwidth. No technical services were rendered by T to the assessee. On a consideration

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

9(l)(vii) did not apply. Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal after taking into consideration the agreement between the assessee and T and the nature of services provided by T to the assessee. It was a simple case of payment for the provision of a bandwidth. No technical services were rendered by T to the assessee. On a consideration