PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

3) of the Act provides that – "Any term used but not defined in this Act or in the agreement referred to in sub-section (1) shall, unless the context otherwise requires, and is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Actor the agreement. have the same meaning as assigned to it in the notification issued by the Central Government

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)

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 as they are expert

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)

3 ITA. 6944/Del/2019 Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites 3.1. Not following the provisions of section 92C(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') while carrying out the transfer pricing assessment. 3.2. Not determining the arm's length price of the international transactions in accordance with the provisions of section 92C(1) and section 92C

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.

3), the assessing officer in the impugned draft assessment order has proposed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AA of the Act alleging non-disclosure of certain international transactions.In this regard, he brought to our notice the provisions of 45 Section 271AA of the Act which read as under: “Penalty for failure to keep and maintain information and document

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

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

capitalization. The main purpose of section 94B\nis to put limitation on interest deduction in certain cases i.e. to cap a specific expense\n(interest).\n1.5 A major distinguishing feature between TP provisions and section 94B is 'carry\nforward' provisions contained in section 94B(4) of the Act which are reproduced below:\n\"(4) Where for any assessment year

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

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital adjusted margin of 4.15% (35th percentile) to 10.29% (65th percentile) with a median of 8.18%. Accordingly, the transactions of assessee was held to be at arm‟s length by the assessee in the transfer pricing documentation. 5. During the course of TP assessment proceedings, the learned TPO requested for various information/ documents which were filed from time to time

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital adjusted margin of 4.15% (35th percentile) to 10.29% (65th percentile) with a median of 8.18%. Accordingly, the transactions of assessee was held to be at arm‟s length by the assessee in the transfer pricing documentation. 5. During the course of TP assessment proceedings, the learned TPO requested for various information/ documents which were filed from time to time

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

92C. The Assessee further claimed that the PLI was liable to be adjusted on account of (i) working capital provided to the Assessee by the AE and (ii) the risks of the business borne by the AE. 5. The AO referred the matter to the TPO. The TPO, by an order dated 19th October, 2011, passed under section 92CA(3

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

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

3) dated 2021-22 25.10.2022 attached with final order dated 24.10.2024 6 Amount of Nil as there was Nil as there was a 77,71,953/-(Pg. Capital Gain a loss loss No. 928 of PB) during the (Pg. No. 88 of (Pg. No. 226 of year PB) PB) Long term

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,(ERSTWHILE VCOSTOMER SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

92C(1) of the Act was made by the DCIT, Circle : 17(1) New Delhi [Assessing Officer] for determination of Arms Length Price in the international transactions undertaken by the assessee during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12. Business profile of the assessee and the Group: 4. The assessee M/s. vCustomer Services India

M/S. RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

92C(1) of the Act was made by the DCIT, Circle : 17(1) New Delhi [Assessing Officer] for determination of Arms Length Price in the international transactions undertaken by the assessee during the financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12. Business profile of the assessee and the Group: 4. The assessee M/s. vCustomer Services India

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

SWATCH GROUP (INDIA) RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royswatch Group (India) Retail Private Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(2), 4Th Floor, Rectangle 1, Plot No.D4, Delhi. Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. (Pan : Aavcs7960H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.07.2024 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B 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 :-

92C(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') are satisfied in the present case. 2.2 Disregarding the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant in the TP documentation as maintained by the Appellant in accordance with section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and instead undertaking a fresh economic

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

GATES INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

92C(1) of the Act and not to determine whether service or benefit has been actually derived by the assessee. The TPO has thus exceeded jurisdiction yet again. (vi) The TPO failed to appreciate that the management charges were paid in respect of various advices obtained/bundle I.T.A. No.2379/Del/2022 8 of services received from Group Headquarters/AE in relation to various

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