TATA NYK SHIPPING PTE. LTD. ,SINGAPORE vs. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in WP(C) No.2562/2022, judgment dated 30.01.2023 18 AY: 2016-17 10. Proceeding further, learned counsel submitted, the assessee is a tax resident of Singapore since its incorporation in 2007 and has been filing its tax returns in Singapore. He submitted, the tax returns filed by the assessee have been

AUGUSTUS CAPITAL PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[A.Y 2015-16] Augustus Capital Pte Ltd Vs. The Dy.C.I.T 24, Raffles Place Circle 1(1) 10-5, Clifford Centre International Taxation Singapore New Delhi Pan: Aabcg 4223 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv Shri Rishab Malhotra Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit-Dr

2) For the purposes of this paragraph, "principally" in relation to ownership of immovable property means the value of such immovable property exceeding 50 per cent of the aggregate value of all assets owned by the company, partnership, trust or estate.' 32. The 'OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital' provides a means of settling on a uniform

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI vs. SABRE DECISION TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL LLC, USA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

92A, 92B, 92C, 92D & 92E. A reasonable guidance however, may be drawn from this definition for other sections in the Act in respect of a fixed place PE. The above definition suggests that a fixed place of business is required for a permanent establishment to exist. The AO in his order does not indicate as to how a fixed place

SABRE DECISION TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

92A, 92B, 92C, 92D & 92E. A reasonable guidance however, may be drawn from this definition for other sections in the Act in respect of a fixed place PE. The above definition suggests that a fixed place of business is required for a permanent establishment to exist. The AO in his order does not indicate as to how a fixed place

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

gains of business or profession” in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” (emphasis supplied) 44. He submitted that the action of the assessing officer in invoking the provisions of section 44DA of the Act to tax royalty income under the head ‘PGBP’ is erroneous, contrary to the facts emanating in the present case and statutory provisions and therefore, deserves

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)

92A taxpa the by the adopt order A.O. nce payer tion enterp yer taxpa Transf ed of the and as per rise yer er by A.O. natur section and Pricing TPO e 92B the Officer of and countr under busin assess y section ess ment in 92CA year which (3) it is reside nt ANNEXURE II Order under 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)

92A taxpa the by the adopt order A.O. nce payer tion enterp yer taxpa Transf ed of the and as per rise yer er by A.O. natur section and Pricing TPO e 92B the Officer of and countr under busin assess y section ess ment in 92CA year which (3) it is reside nt ANNEXURE II Order under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on transfer

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

92A(2)(b) or in Rule 10B of the Rules for applying filter to the related party transactions, however, it is a well-settled proposition that if any company is functionally comparable with the taxpayer but at the same time it is more than a specific percentage of RTP, then the same should be ignored by treating

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present Assessment Year also the facts are similar and are squarely covered with the decision of the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. Hence Ground Nos. 15 to 14.3 are allowed. 24. As regards Ground No. 16 to 16.2 is relating to Disallowance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 1740/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Expeditors International Of Washington, 1015, 3Rd Avenue, Tax, Circle-1(2)(2), International 12Th Floor, Seattle Washington Taxation, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce4315R Assessee By : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

92A;] 25 Expeditors International of Washington (ii) income which falls under the head "Salaries", if it is earned63 in India. [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the income of the nature referred to in this clause payable for— (a) service rendered in India; and (b) the rest period or leave period which is preceded

PCL FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDI CIT, NATIONAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Pcl Foods Private Limited, Additional / Joint/ Unit No.-219, Plot No. 2, Deputy/Assistant Vardhman Crown Mall, Lsc, Vs Commissioner Of Income Sector 19, Dwarka, New Tax/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi-110075. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Pan- Aahcp3493L Assessee Revenue

Section 92CA(1) of the Act, by the ITO, ward 19(2), New Delhi to determine the Arm’s length price in respect of international transactions undertaken by the assessee company with its Associates Enterprises. The TPO noted that the assessee had entered into international transactions with the following group entities Sr. Name of the Group Nature of Brief description

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

92A(2)(a) and (b) wherein a limit of less than 26% is fixed. Therefore, this Panel declines to interfere with the stand taken by the TPO in this regard. Rejecting comparables having different accounting year On the Comparables maintaining accounts in terms of period other than the financial year has been considered and DRP is of following view

LATE SHRI SOM PRAKASH SETHI ( THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MR. AMAN SETHI),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CRICLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Late Shri Som Prakash Sethi Vs Acit, (Through Legal Heir Mr. Aman Circle-28(1), Sethi), S-541, Greater Kailash New Delhi. Part-Ii, South Delhi, New Delhi-110048. Pan-Abyps3902L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawri, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 Order

2 filed by the assessee. It is submitted by Ld.AR that the payment was made through banking channel which has not been doubted by the Revenue therefore, deduction of the cost incurred by the assessee of INR 1,10,25,000/- cannot be held as unexplained money received by the assessee at the time of sale and thus, addition

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

92A of the Act and consequently the order of the CIT (Appeals) upholding the chargeability of royalty from two AEs, as alleged by TPO, is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. 2) That the CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and under the law in upholding the jurisdiction of the TPO to determine "arms length price" in respect of alleged

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

92A of the Act and consequently the order of the CIT (Appeals) upholding the chargeability of royalty from two AEs, as alleged by TPO, is arbitrary, unjust and bad in law. 2) That the CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and under the law in upholding the jurisdiction of the TPO to determine "arms length price" in respect of alleged

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI vs. JUBILANT FOODWORKS LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing)

section 92A (2)(g) of the Act in respect of the transaction of the Appellant with the third parties namely Domino Pizza Overseas Franchise BV (DPOF), Domino Pizza International Franchising Inc. (DPIF) & Dunkin Donuts Franchising LLC (DDFL). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/TPO erred incorrectly holding that entities with whom Appellant has undertaken transaction payment of royalty are Associate

DCIT,CIRCLE3-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JUBILANT FOODWORKS LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing)

section 92A (2)(g) of the Act in respect of the transaction of the Appellant with the third parties namely Domino Pizza Overseas Franchise BV (DPOF), Domino Pizza International Franchising Inc. (DPIF) & Dunkin Donuts Franchising LLC (DDFL). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/TPO erred incorrectly holding that entities with whom Appellant has undertaken transaction payment of royalty are Associate

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

92A of the Act. We repeat that this assessee and its overseas associate enterprise admittedly fall in this category. There is further no quarrel about its Deltamethrin sale to be in the nature of international transactions u/s. 92B of theAct. We notice that section 92C(1) of the Act postulates arms length price computation by applying six methods namely; comparable