(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

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

92A(2) is deemed to be AE. Section 92B defines as to what would be construed as an “international transaction”. In order to appreciate the full width, amplitude of an “international transaction” the meaning of which is provided in section 92B one would have to in addition read the definition of “transaction” given in Section 92F(v). 27. Section

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

92A taxpayer taxpayer by the by TPO the A.O. A.O. payer section 92B enterprise Transfer and the Pricing nature assessment country in Officer of year which it under business is resident section 92CA (3) ANNEXURE II Order under section 120, read with section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated April, 2003 In exercise of the power conferred

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

transfer prices for goods, facilities and services in order to determine that they conform to the “arm’s length principle”. Not only has section 92 of the Act been completely recast but new sections 92A to 92F have also been introduced to meet the desired objective of ensuring that the local tax base of an assessee is fair. 22. Section

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Sl. Date Name Nam Nature Name Nature Date Tran Arms Met Refer Date No. of of e and and and of of sfer length hod ence of receip the addr quantu addres associ issue price price appli to desp

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Sl. Date Name Nam Nature Name Nature Date Tran Arms Met Refer Date No. of of e and and and of of sfer length hod ence of receip the addr quantu addres associ issue price price appli to desp

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

2 to 6 of appeal pertains to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure of Rs.114.89 crores. Briefly stated, the relevant facts in this regard are that the assessee M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Company whose share holding is as under:- M Bird Travels Private Limited Mrs. Radha Bhatia and Family (100% ownership with

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

2 to 6 of appeal pertains to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure of Rs.114.89 crores. Briefly stated, the relevant facts in this regard are that the assessee M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Company whose share holding is as under:- M Bird Travels Private Limited Mrs. Radha Bhatia and Family (100% ownership with

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

2 to 6 of appeal pertains to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure of Rs.114.89 crores. Briefly stated, the relevant facts in this regard are that the assessee M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Company whose share holding is as under:- M Bird Travels Private Limited Mrs. Radha Bhatia and Family (100% ownership with

M/S. SIS LIVE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishisis Live Acit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Central Circle-17, Room No. Vs. Golf View Corporate Tower B, 356, E-2, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92 of the Act, dealing with transfer pricing, were not applicable in the assessee's case. In this regard reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Private Limited v. Union of India (WP No. 871 of 2014) wherein it is held that transfer pricing provisions

M/S DABUR INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

2) cannot have retrospective effect inasmuch as it deals with the jurisdiction of the Transfer Pricing Officer and , therefore sub-section (2A) cannot be regarded as being a mere procedural provision. At Para 20 of the Amadeus Ruling, the Hon' Delhi High Court stated that: Similarly, in the case before us, we find that there is nothing in the statute

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DABUR INDIA LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

2) cannot have retrospective effect inasmuch as it deals with the jurisdiction of the Transfer Pricing Officer and , therefore sub-section (2A) cannot be regarded as being a mere procedural provision. At Para 20 of the Amadeus Ruling, the Hon' Delhi High Court stated that: Similarly, in the case before us, we find that there is nothing in the statute

HALDOR TOPSOE (I) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

transfer pricing following issues emerge which requires consideration of the DRP for issue of direction under section 144C of the Act. Issue I Whether AO/TPO’s action by applying various filters, is right in rejecting few of taxpayer’s comparables and including new comparables without going into the functionally aspect. Issue II Whether AO/TPO is right in denying any adjustment

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FEDERAL MOGUL AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ito, Vs Federal Mogul Automotive Product (India) Pvt.Ltd., Ward 11(2), Revenue-77A, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. New Delhi-110048 (Pan: Aaacf4128M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Himanshu Shekhar Sinha, Adv. Order

Sections 92, and 92A to 92F of the Act read with Rules 10A to 10E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”). It was submitted that the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the company establishes that the international transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises adhere to the arm's length principle as elucidated in the Indian Transfer Pricing

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 to 12) 14. Grounds 3.1 to 3.6 taken by the appellant in its appeal for AY 2005-06 are as below: GROUND NO. 3.1: The AO/CIT(A) has erred by not providing reasons for rejecting the analysis undertaken by the appellant for benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to reimbursement of advertisement expenses. GROUND

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 to 12) 14. Grounds 3.1 to 3.6 taken by the appellant in its appeal for AY 2005-06 are as below: GROUND NO. 3.1: The AO/CIT(A) has erred by not providing reasons for rejecting the analysis undertaken by the appellant for benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to reimbursement of advertisement expenses. GROUND

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 to 12) 14. Grounds 3.1 to 3.6 taken by the appellant in its appeal for AY 2005-06 are as below: GROUND NO. 3.1: The AO/CIT(A) has erred by not providing reasons for rejecting the analysis undertaken by the appellant for benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to reimbursement of advertisement expenses. GROUND

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 to 12) 14. Grounds 3.1 to 3.6 taken by the appellant in its appeal for AY 2005-06 are as below: GROUND NO. 3.1: The AO/CIT(A) has erred by not providing reasons for rejecting the analysis undertaken by the appellant for benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to reimbursement of advertisement expenses. GROUND