M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( ‘Act’), is bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice and void ab-initio. 1.1. That assessing officer erred on facts and in law in computing the income of the appellant at Rs 39,11,70,920 against the returned total income of Rs.23,08,71,683. Transfer Pricing

SH. EVALUESERVE.COM PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishievalueserve.Com Private Vs. Ito, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi Pan: Aaace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer {"TPO"} for computation of the arm's length price, as is required under section 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 16,24,01,920

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 144C of the income tax act 1961 on 28th of February 2014 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 332,007,300 against the returned income of ₹ 4,10,27,920/– wherein the following three additions were made i. addition on account of transfer pricing

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 144C of the income tax act 1961 on 28th of February 2014 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 332,007,300 against the returned income of ₹ 4,10,27,920/– wherein the following three additions were made i. addition on account of transfer pricing

MORNINGSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimorningstar India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Platinum Tech Circle-17(1), Park, Delhi Plot No. 17/18, Sector-30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Pan: Aaacx0362K (Appellant) (Respondent)

920(3) of the Act are satisfied in the instant case; 2.2 disregarding the Arm‟s Length Price („ALP‟) as determined by the Appellant in the Transfer Pricing (TP‟) documentation maintained as per section

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

transfer pricing adjustment is not sustainable under law. 76. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported order of learned transfer pricing officer and learned CIT - A. 77. We have carefully considered rival contention and perused orders of lower authorities. Facts in facts show in present case is that assessee has given a loan to its wholly owned subsidiary in Switzerland namely

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

920,639 Calculate the transfer pricing 3,16,09,462 7 adjustment by restricting the difference (as per step 5) to the proportion of international transaction (i.e. commission earned from associated enterprises) 26 Now in the above steps we find that while calculating step 1, there is no justification given by the learned transfer-pricing officer of making an addition

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

920,639 Calculate the transfer pricing 3,16,09,462 7 adjustment by restricting the difference (as per step 5) to the proportion of international transaction (i.e. commission earned from associated enterprises) 26 Now in the above steps we find that while calculating step 1, there is no justification given by the learned transfer-pricing officer of making an addition

BLACKROCK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiblack Rock Services India Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Hsidc Building Vanijya Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rolta Corporate Towers, 187, Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aabch4449Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Black Rock Services India Private The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Limited, Income Tax , 3Rd Floor, Rolta Corporate Towers, 187, Circle-1(1), Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aabch4449Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 920(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case; 2.2 rejecting the Transfer Pricing („TP‟) documentation maintained

BLACKROCK SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiblack Rock Services India Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Hsidc Building Vanijya Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rolta Corporate Towers, 187, Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aabch4449Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Black Rock Services India Private The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Limited, Income Tax , 3Rd Floor, Rolta Corporate Towers, 187, Circle-1(1), Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aabch4449Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 920(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case; 2.2 rejecting the Transfer Pricing („TP‟) documentation maintained

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

transfer pricing. The AMP expenditure incurred does not fall within the definition of international transaction and therefore the same was not reported in form 3CEB as the same expenditure was incurred in relation to third-party vendors in India. The AMP expenditure by assessee is unilateral action. The TP regulation would be applicable to transaction began arrangement understanding reaction

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

transfer pricing. The AMP expenditure incurred does not fall within the definition of international transaction and therefore the same was not reported in form 3CEB as the same expenditure was incurred in relation to third-party vendors in India. The AMP expenditure by assessee is unilateral action. The TP regulation would be applicable to transaction began arrangement understanding reaction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

transfer pricing. The AMP expenditure incurred does not fall within the definition of international transaction and therefore the same was not reported in form 3CEB as the same expenditure was incurred in relation to third-party vendors in India. The AMP expenditure by assessee is unilateral action. The TP regulation would be applicable to transaction began arrangement understanding reaction

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

transfer pricing. The AMP expenditure incurred does not fall within the definition of international transaction and therefore the same was not reported in form 3CEB as the same expenditure was incurred in relation to third-party vendors in India. The AMP expenditure by assessee is unilateral action. The TP regulation would be applicable to transaction began arrangement understanding reaction

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CC-07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

920,27,38,000/-. The Transfer pricing Officer vide an order dated 31.10.2019, held that since incurring of the said AMP expenses by the assessee had also benefitted the AEs thereby promoting their brands and trademark, the assessee had essentially incurred cost in connection with the services it provided to the AEs under a mutual arrangement, which although not reduced

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

transfer pricing adjustment, several other additions were made and the income of the assessee was assessed at RS 1,463,707,764/–. The assessee filed objection u/s 144C of the act before The Dispute Resolution Panel – I, New Delhi (the learned DRP). Such objections were disposed of by giving direction on 16 December 2016. Consequent to that the assessment order

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

price, which are, further transferred to eligible units at actual cost comprising of procurement cost, processing cost, freight expenses on FIFO [ 1st in 1st out] basis. Therefore, it was stated that assessee has transferred goods at total cost comprising all these cost components. Merely because silver for is also sold by appellant to third-party customers at a price higher

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LUXOTTICA INDIA EYEWEAR PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’). Since some of the issues raised in these appeals are common, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in its appeals for these