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

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

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

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

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

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

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

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

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

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

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

transfer of shares at face value has been approved by the management of and Eltek company also”. 12. Premised above factual position, we will now examine, whether on the present facts, provisions of section 17(2)(iii) are applicable and whether the Ld AO was justified in initiating action u/s 147 of the Act. Provisions of section 17(2

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 288B of the Income Tax Act'1961. Copies of Form 15CA/CB issued by an independent chartered accountant were also placed before you. We respectfully submit that there should not be any disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS/withholding taxes from the payments made to Intelsat Corporation, we are giving below a brief note on the same: During

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 288B of the Income Tax Act'1961. Copies of Form 15CA/CB issued by an independent chartered accountant were also placed before you. We respectfully submit that there should not be any disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS/withholding taxes from the payments made to Intelsat Corporation, we are giving below a brief note on the same: During

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. First, we take up the appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10. Assessee‟s appeal is against Order of The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, circle – 13 (1), New Delhi (The Learned Assessing Officer) passed on 26/12/2013 u/s 143 (3) read with section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act (The Act) in pursuance of direction of The Learned Dispute

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

2. First, we take up the appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10. Assessee‟s appeal is against Order of The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, circle – 13 (1), New Delhi (The Learned Assessing Officer) passed on 26/12/2013 u/s 143 (3) read with section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act (The Act) in pursuance of direction of The Learned Dispute

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

pricing of a product is a very subjective exercise and is true value, as received by the receiver, can differ from that received by others in the market place. Thus, CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along the following dimensions: (i) Quality of the product or service; (ii) Contractual terms (example, scope and terms of warranties provided, sale

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

pricing of a product is a very subjective exercise and is true value, as received by the receiver, can differ from that received by others in the market place. Thus, CUP method requires a high degree of comparability along the following dimensions: (i) Quality of the product or service; (ii) Contractual terms (example, scope and terms of warranties provided, sale

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

2) of the Act.  Assessing Officer (AO) passed draft assessment order (DAO) dated 21.03.2014 under section 143(3) read with section 144C, making addition of Rs.4,70,99,145, which included transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,91,52,594 and disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act of Rs.2,79,46,551.  Objections were filed by the Petitioner

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

2) of the Act.  Assessing Officer (AO) passed draft assessment order (DAO) dated 21.03.2014 under section 143(3) read with section 144C, making addition of Rs.4,70,99,145, which included transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,91,52,594 and disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act of Rs.2,79,46,551.  Objections were filed by the Petitioner

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

2) of the Act.  Assessing Officer (AO) passed draft assessment order (DAO) dated 21.03.2014 under section 143(3) read with section 144C, making addition of Rs.4,70,99,145, which included transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,91,52,594 and disallowance of deduction under section 10B of the Act of Rs.2,79,46,551.  Objections were filed by the Petitioner

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)

90,000, the disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110 per cent of that sum, i.e., Rs. 52,56,197. By no stretch of imagination can s. 14A or r. 8D be interpreted to mean that the entire tax-exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in s. 14A, and is only

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

2) (xv) of the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law." 85. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, para 7.13 emphasises that there should not be any automatic inference about an AE receiving an entity group service only because it gets an incidental benefit for being part of a larger concern and not to any specific

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

2) (xv) of the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law." 85. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, para 7.13 emphasises that there should not be any automatic inference about an AE receiving an entity group service only because it gets an incidental benefit for being part of a larger concern and not to any specific

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

90,88,28,700 PLI 11.69 % 26.42% Markup Rs 10,62,42,075 Rs 24,01,12,542 Cumulative addition Rs 101,50,70,775 Rs 114,89,41,243 11 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) 2.8 Being aggrieved by the above proposed transfer pricing adjustment, the assessee filed detailed objections before