RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal, Impugning The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereafter ‘Ao’) Making The Transfer Pricing Adjustments (Hereafter ‘Tp Adjustments’) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Hereafter ‘Ay’) 2008-09 As Finalised By The Transfer Pricing Officer 2015:Dhc:6421-Db

2) of the Rules in respect of the analysis of functionally comparable companies? 4. The factual context in which the aforesaid questions of law arise are briefly stated as under:- 4.1 The Assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of vCustomer, USA, (an Associated Enterprise - hereafter ‘AE’). The Assessee is engaged in providing voice-based customer care

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

capital adjustment. Based on the above submission, we request your goodself to rectify the above- mentioned defects by passing a suitable order under section 154 of the Act and accordingly issue the revised assessment order. ------------------------------ Unquote 2. In addition to the above-mentioned prima facie errors, the DRP has grossly erred in confirming the addition

NOIDA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

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

gains of business or profession\", the same is entitled to\nbe carried forward to the eight assessment years and allowable in subsequent years\nsubject to the extent maximum allowable interest expenditure in accordance with\nsub-section (2) of section 94B of the Act. He thus, submits that the AO has rightly\ncomputed the amount of disallowance so that

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Gain a loss loss No. 928 of PB) during the (Pg. No. 88 of (Pg. No. 226 of year PB) PB) Long term 4,09,10,680/-(Pg. 4,09,10,680/-(Pg. Nil capital loss No. 88 of PB) No. 226 of PB) (Pg. No. 928 of Carried forward for PB) current year The ld. AR fairly submitted even

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations contained in the preceding paragraphs

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

gain arising on account of foreign exchange fluctuation as non-operating items while computing the margins of the assessee as well as comparable companies. 11. The learned AO / TPO / DRP have erred by considering provision for doubtful debts andbank charges as non-operating items while computing the margins of the assessee as well as comparable companies. 12. The learned

MITSUI PRIME ADVANCED COMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-16(*2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6944/Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14)

92C(2) of the Act and arbitrarily disregarding the economic adjustment envisaged under Rule 10B(e)(iii). 3.3. Disregarding the arm's length price as determined by the Appellant in the TP documentation in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'). 3.4. Disregarding the fact that the price penetration

UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INOCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GURGAON

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

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

gain market for the services provided by the assessee so as to increase its sales. Ld.AR for the assessee further submitted that without incurring of AMP expenses, the assessee company would not be able to make its customers aware about the services rendered by it. The Ld.AR further submits that the TPO has made two adjustments as (i) on protective

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

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 PE exists

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

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 PE exists

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

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

92C(2) of the Act while computing the ALP. Corporate Tax matters 4. that on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in passing the Assessment order dated 30.12.2015 under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 254 of the Act in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble ITAT (ITA no 5728/Del/2011

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, Circle5(2), Vs. M/S Cargil India Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi -110001 111 Rectangle–I Saket District Centre New Delhi Pan No. Aaacc3269J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital work in progress. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly applied the rate of interest for four months on the short term loan of Rs.20,45,26,795/- and the internal accrual of Rs.6,25,57,646/-. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same and reject

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

92C(4) proviso along with rules discussed hereinabove at length. There is hardly any dispute that this chapter and the rules notified thereunder prescribe that an arms length price is not the price an assessee is charging or paying for being a party in the international transaction in question but it is the price i.e. to be paid or charged

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\N\Nita No. 4477/Del/2024\N[Assessment Year: 2020-21]\N\N| Genpact Services Llc,\Nplot 22A & B, Sector 18,\Nudyog Vihar,\Ngurgaon, Haryana-122002\Npan-Aaccg3353P\Nappellant\N|\Nassistant Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-International Tax-1(3)(1),\Nvs Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\N| Appellant By\Nshri Vishal Kalra, Adv.,\Nms. Reema Malik, Adv.& Ms.\Nsnigdha Gautam, Adv.\Nrespondent By\Nshri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N30.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N31.07.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The\Nassessing Officer Dated 29.07.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act') In Pursuance To The\Ndirections Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 25.06.2024 Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2020-21.\N2. The Relevant Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Indian Branch Office Of\Ngenpact Llc, A Usa Company. The Assessee Is A Service Provider\Nrendering Off-Shore Support Services Akin To Bpo Services, Including\Ncollections/Analytics Call Centre Services & Other Back-Office Support\Nservices To Its Aes. The Assessee Is Responsible For Rendering The\Ndesignated Bpo / Collections Services From Its Facility / Infrastructure In\Nindia. As For Assessment Year 2020-21, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of\Nincome (Roi') Declaring An Income Of Inr 20,57,10,540/- On 07.01.2021.\Nduring The Course Of Scrutiny, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S\N92Ca Of The Act To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo') To Determine The\Narm'S Length Price (‘Alp') In Respect Of International Transaction Entered\Ninto By The Assessee.\N2.

92C in conformity with the arm's length price so\ndetermined by the TPO. As is discernible from the order of the DRP, it\nwas the claim of the assessee that now when the Asst.\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(3)(1), Mumbai, had\nduring the course of the TP proceedings accepted the reimbursement\nof expenses

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

92C. In sub-section 3 of section 144B, roles of Technical unit is clearly spelt out according to which, functions of technical unit includes assistance or advice on transfer pricing issues. During the course of performing such function, the technical unit can obtain advice from the TPO on the issue of determination of Arm’s Length price of international transaction

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 92C(3) of the Act read with Rule 10B(2) of the Rules, by including/selecting companies that are not comparable to the Appellant in terms of functions performed, assets employed, risks assumed and rejecting companies selected by the Appellant. 16. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/AO/TPO erred in incorrectly computing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DISCOVERY COMMUNICATION INDIA

The appeals are disposed of

Gains from Business and Profession”, if the following conditions are satisfied: (a) it is not capital expenditure; (b) it is not personal expenditure; and (c) it should be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 10.1. The first two conditions are negative in nature, while the third condition or requirement is positive. It is not the case

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

92C (2) of the act.\n\n33. Further in case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 ,\nexternal corporate of purchase price of power from SEB is used as a\ncomparable discarding the Indian energy exchange rate by the learned CIT –\nA, and the same order has not been challenged before the higher forum, it\nbecomes final. This shows