RAYBAN OPTICS INDIA LTD.,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 5. This is second round of litigation as the issue concerning transfer pricing of Advertising, Marketing & Promotional (AMP) expenses was set aside to the file of AO for deciding afresh by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.5282/Del/2011 vide order dated 09.08.2012 by determining following findings

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RAYBAN SUN OPTICS INDIA LTD.,, BHIWANI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 5. This is second round of litigation as the issue concerning transfer pricing of Advertising, Marketing & Promotional (AMP) expenses was set aside to the file of AO for deciding afresh by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.5282/Del/2011 vide order dated 09.08.2012 by determining following findings

SUPER BRANDS LTD (UK),NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

delay is condoned. 6. Except for appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No. 3115/DEL/2009, the assessee has raised additional ground which is common in all the Assessment Years and reads as under: “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and void

M/S. SUPERBRANDS LIMITED (UK),NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

delay is condoned. 6. Except for appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No. 3115/DEL/2009, the assessee has raised additional ground which is common in all the Assessment Years and reads as under: “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and void

M/S. ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 92B of the Act of the expression "receivables" does not mean that de hors the context every item of "receivables" appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be characterized as an international transaction, and (ii) With the Assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ACME TELE POWER LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTION LTD.), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 92B of the Act of the expression "receivables" does not mean that de hors the context every item of "receivables" appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be characterized as an international transaction, and (ii) With the Assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working

M/S. ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 92B of the Act of the expression "receivables" does not mean that de hors the context every item of "receivables" appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be characterized as an international transaction, and (ii) With the Assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 DELHI vs. QUALCOMM INDIA PVT LTD

delay is condoned. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 586/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 6. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 7. The appeal is confined to the exclusion of three comparables

DLF MIDTOWN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-7(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

delay of 646 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Brief facts of case are that the assessee is engaged in business of construction, development and sale of integrated townships and residential houses and apartments. The assessee filed the return of income on 28/09/2016 declaring loss of Rs.3,97,74,805/- which was subsequently revised on 30/11/2016

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF MIDTOWN PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

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

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

delay of 646 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Brief facts of case are that the assessee is engaged in business of construction, development and sale of integrated townships and residential houses and apartments. The assessee filed the return of income on 28/09/2016 declaring loss of Rs.3,97,74,805/- which was subsequently revised on 30/11/2016

SUPERBRANDS LTD (UK),GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.332/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Superbrands Ltd. (Uk) Dcit C/O Bdo India Llp 1501-1508, Vs. Circle 3(1)(2), Palm Spring Plaza, Sector-54, International Taxation, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana. Pan No. Aaics6497G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. In addition to the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, the assessee has raised the following additional grounds: Ground No. 3 “Without prejudice to ground no. 1 & 2, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned assessing officer erred in passing a draft

CONVERGYS INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 782/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 & Sa No. 132/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Industrial Plot No. 243, Tower-A, Circle-4(2), 3Rd, 4Th, 5Th 1St & Tower-B, New Delhi 2Nd 5Th Ground & Floors, Sp Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc5056G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Shah, Cit Dr & Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2022

condoned owing to reasonable cause – Covid. 4. The assessee, Convergys India, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Concentrix CVG Customer Management Group Inc., USA (hereinafter referred to as “CMG USA”) and was incorporated in January 2001. It is primarily engaged in the provision of IT enabled customer care back-office support services. CIS operates remote customer interaction call centres

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidence under Rule 29 of ITAT:\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

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

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants