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

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

92D of the Act. 3.4. That on fact of the case and in law, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in application of inappropriate filters based on different financial year end, export service income and employee cost for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 3.5. That on the facts of the case

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

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

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

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 :-

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and instead undertaking a fresh economic analysis with inappropriate quantitative and qualitative filters. 2.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in disregarding the segmental profitability of the Appellant in its related party business

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

gained popularity only because of AMP expenditure of Sony India pvt limited ( para 13) and as operating margins of appellant in distribution transaction were at arm's length it could be concluded that assessee was suitably remunerated (para 24) (pg 229-247 of convenience compendium). J Decision of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 16.01.2019 in ITA no 6389/De1/2012

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

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

gained popularity only because of AMP expenditure of Sony India pvt limited ( para 13) and as operating margins of appellant in distribution transaction were at arm's length it could be concluded that assessee was suitably remunerated (para 24) (pg 229-247 of convenience compendium). J Decision of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 16.01.2019 in ITA no 6389/De1/2012

SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

92D(3) of\nthe Act, the AO may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to 2%\nof the value of such transactions.\"\n\nAccordingly, Rs.4,57,61,447/- i.e. 2% of Rs.2,28,80,72,332/- should be levied as\npenalty u/s 271G of the Act.\n\n2.\nFurther, it is also noticed

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.

92D in respect of any person or class of persons. 9. Sub-section (3) of section 144B of the Act, provides the scope and role of various units under faceless assessment such as National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Regional Faceless Assessment Centres, Assessment Units (AU), Verification Units (VU), Technical Units (TU) and Review Unit (RU). The relevant role of Technical

CVENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in both the A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') as well as fresh search. 4.2 The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the comparable companies adopted by the Assessee on the basis of additional/ modified quantitative filters selected by the Ld. TPO and arbitrary statements that lacked valid

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

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'); 2.2. disregarding multiple year/ prior years' data as used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year [i.e. Financial Year ('FY) 2006-07] data for comparable companies should be used despite the fact that the same was not necessarily available

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)

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 adjustment has been adopted in relation to sale to third parties in India and has no nexus with the purchase from related parties. 3.5. Holding that the tax ought to have been paid on the price

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

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

92D(1) of the Act. 29. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the adjustment made on account of reimbursement of cost. Before us, it is an assessee’s submissions that the expenses which were reimbursement of all expenditure which were inter alia incurred

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

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

92D(1) of the Act. 29. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the adjustment made on account of reimbursement of cost. Before us, it is an assessee’s submissions that the expenses which were reimbursement of all expenditure which were inter alia incurred

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

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

92D(1) of the Act. 29. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the adjustment made on account of reimbursement of cost. Before us, it is an assessee’s submissions that the expenses which were reimbursement of all expenditure which were inter alia incurred