MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

methods and subterfuges and that the Assessee could not seek to take shelter behind a draft agreement not recognised by law. 25. Mr. Singh submitted that there was no answer to the Revenue‟s contention that the residual value of the plant and machinery after termination of the lease would be negligible and this when seen in light

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

methods and subterfuges and that the Assessee could not seek to take shelter behind a draft agreement not recognised by law. 25. Mr. Singh submitted that there was no answer to the Revenue‟s contention that the residual value of the plant and machinery after termination of the lease would be negligible and this when seen in light

SAC FINANCE COMANY LTD,HONG KONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

TP analysis. In view of the above, the assessee's objections in this regard are not tenable. However, the AO shall verify the claim of the assessee that the entire value of Wormhole Singapore is not relatable to its investments in Orbgen India and accordingly such value relating to other investments shall be excluded in the determination of full value

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Gyan Prakash Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(4), B-189, Yojna Vihar, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi – 92 (Pan: Adupg2697N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

tp astronomical height only to create the artificial transaction in the form of capital gain. Surrounding circumstances differ from the normal shore market transactions in which they are ordinarily carried out. Taking all the steps together, final conclusion does not accord with the human probabilities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More held

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges”. 8.1 In the instant case also, a colourable device has been created to camouflage the credit of the amount to Indiabulls Power Ltd. (now RattanIndia Power Ltd.) as a capital receipt to avoid the test of section 68 of the Income

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.

capital adopted by the valuer while completing 27 the valuation of the specified assets. We observe that assessee has valued the specified assets while acquiring the assets in the previous assessment year and the acquisition of the business was completed with Board Resolution and also acquiring valuation from a third party expert, the same was adopted in their books

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

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

method in Form of SBI PLR.\n4.3 It is relevant to mention that by advocating to apply SBI PLR for benchmarking of\ninterest on NCDs, the assessee is questioning its own TP documentation (including TP\nStudy Report) maintained u/s 92D of the Aet. The assessee's contention to apply SBI\nPLR is essentially a cherry-picking exercise and is without

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

capital expenditure or personal expenses are allowable under the Act. Without prejudice, he submitted that the AO failed to consider that adding back the amount already disallowed by the appellant under section 43B of the Act, would lead to double disallowance to the extent of Rs.1,04,58,885/-. It was further submitted that if it is held that royalty

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

capital expenditure or personal expenses are allowable under the Act. Without prejudice, he submitted that the AO failed to consider that adding back the amount already disallowed by the appellant under section 43B of the Act, would lead to double disallowance to the extent of Rs.1,04,58,885/-. It was further submitted that if it is held that royalty

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

method. The TNMM approves comparability on the basis of broader overall similarity. When we consider the nature of services provided by this company, being the ITES, which is similar to that of those rendered by the assessee, again the ITES, we cannot order its exclusion simply for the reason that the verticals of ITES are somewhat different. If one goes

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

method. The TNMM approves comparability on the basis of broader overall similarity. When we consider the nature of services provided by this company, being the ITES, which is similar to that of those rendered by the assessee, again the ITES, we cannot order its exclusion simply for the reason that the verticals of ITES are somewhat different. If one goes

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom: Provided that in case the aforesaid arrangement involves a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, the amount of profits from such transaction shall be determined having regard

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

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIOANAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

TP adjustment in respect of outstanding receivables. 40. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee strongly contended that all receivables and payables being closely linked to respective main transactions, have been bench marked using combined transaction approach and working capital adjustment for which the assessee filed invoice-wise details for export of slow moving goods including

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

TP adjustment is vitiated and unsustainable in law. It is thus the plea of the assessee that to render substantial cause of justice, the Tribunal is not only entitled in law but also under a sacrosanct duty to admit the additional evidences, more so, where the lower authorities have omitted to examine the factual aspect on comparable market value

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

capital in nature not revenue in nature. The assessee also placed reliance on the following judgments wherein such subsidy was held to be as a capital receipt:  CIT –vs- Sh. Sham Lal Bansal (Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, ITA No. 472 of 2010  PCIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [416 ITR 591 2019] Cal High Court  CIT vs. Ponni

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

capital in nature not revenue in nature. The assessee also placed reliance on the following judgments wherein such subsidy was held to be as a capital receipt:  CIT –vs- Sh. Sham Lal Bansal (Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, ITA No. 472 of 2010  PCIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [416 ITR 591 2019] Cal High Court  CIT vs. Ponni