CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

92A to 92F have also been introduced to meet the desired objective of ensuring that the local tax base of an assessee is fair. 22. Section 92D provides that every person who has entered into an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, during a previous year, shall keep and maintain such information and documents, prescribed by the Board, as will

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

92A taxpa the by the adopt order A.O. nce payer tion enterp yer taxpa Transf ed of the and as per rise yer er by A.O. natur section and Pricing TPO e 92B the Officer of and countr under busin assess y section ess ment in 92CA year which (3) it is reside nt ANNEXURE II Order under section

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

92A taxpa the by the adopt order A.O. nce payer tion enterp yer taxpa Transf ed of the and as per rise yer er by A.O. natur section and Pricing TPO e 92B the Officer of and countr under busin assess y section ess ment in 92CA year which (3) it is reside nt ANNEXURE II Order under section

PCL FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDI CIT, NATIONAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Pcl Foods Private Limited, Additional / Joint/ Unit No.-219, Plot No. 2, Deputy/Assistant Vardhman Crown Mall, Lsc, Vs Commissioner Of Income Sector 19, Dwarka, New Tax/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi-110075. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Pan- Aahcp3493L Assessee Revenue

Section 92CA(1) of the Act, by the ITO, ward 19(2), New Delhi to determine the Arm’s length price in respect of international transactions undertaken by the assessee company with its Associates Enterprises. The TPO noted that the assessee had entered into international transactions with the following group entities Sr. Name of the Group Nature of Brief description

GE CAPITAL BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 403/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) (Through Physical Hearing) Sbi Business Process Vs Dcit Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Earlier Known As C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, Ge Capital Business Process New Delhi Management Services Pvt. Ltd. 401, 402, 4Th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E- 1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi Pan: Aabcg0222E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92A(1) or 92A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. But the TPO ignored these facts and while computing the proportionate adjustment has considered the operating expenses for related party transaction as Rs. 24.01 crores, thereby, calculating the proportionate factor as 13.34%. Therefore, we remand back this issue to the file of the TPO/AO and after verifying

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

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

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

section 92A(2)(b) or in Rule 92A(2)(b) or in Rule 10B of the Rules for applying filter to the related party transactions, however, it is a well-settled proposition that if any company is functionally comparable with the taxpayer but at the same time it is more than a specific percentage of RTP, then the same should

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

92A, 92B, 92C, 92D and 92E, unless the context otherwise requires,— (i) "accountant" shall have the same meaning as in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288; Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 15:09:32 Signature Not Verified ITA 155/2022 & 156/2022 Page 5 of 38 (ii) "arm's length price" means a price which

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA)PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

92A, 92B, 92C, 92D and 92E, unless the context otherwise requires,— (i) "accountant" shall have the same meaning as in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288; Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 15:09:32 Signature Not Verified ITA 155/2022 & 156/2022 Page 5 of 38 (ii) "arm's length price" means a price which

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Disallowance u/s 10A of the Act 2.3 The first issue in dispute arising out of grounds 2 to 6 of appeal pertains to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure of Rs.114.89 crores. Briefly stated, the relevant facts in this regard are that the assessee M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Company whose share holding

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Disallowance u/s 10A of the Act 2.3 The first issue in dispute arising out of grounds 2 to 6 of appeal pertains to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure of Rs.114.89 crores. Briefly stated, the relevant facts in this regard are that the assessee M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Company whose share holding

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Disallowance u/s 10A of the Act 2.3 The first issue in dispute arising out of grounds 2 to 6 of appeal pertains to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of excessive AMP expenditure of Rs.114.89 crores. Briefly stated, the relevant facts in this regard are that the assessee M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Company whose share holding

JUBILANT FOODWORKS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., Versus Dcit, Circle-1, Plot No. 1A, Sector-16A, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcd1821C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. K.M. Gupta, Advocate Sh. Shruti Khimta, A.R. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr

section 92A(2) are also satisfied. Therefore, the aforesaid two entities have to be considered as AEs. 12. On merits of the issue, learned Departmental Representative submitted, since the roles and responsibilities under both the agreements with Dominos Pizza and Dunkin Donuts are similar, the rate of franchise fee/royalty should also be similar. Therefore, since the assessee had paid franchise

HALDOR TOPSOE (I) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b). 9. The learned Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on account of certain additions. Page 37 of 112 ITA No.-654/Del/2015. Haldor Topsoe India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 10. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in not granting 100% of the eligible profit as deduction

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 1740/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Expeditors International Of Washington, 1015, 3Rd Avenue, Tax, Circle-1(2)(2), International 12Th Floor, Seattle Washington Taxation, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce4315R Assessee By : Sh. Deepak Chopra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

disallowance has been made with respect to freight logistics transactions in the scrutiny assessment proceedings of El India in any of the previous years.” 24. The adjudication of the ld. DRP on the issue of ‘managerial service’ is as under: “First, the Panel will consider the ambit of 'managerial services’ to test whether the instant services can qualify

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI vs. JUBILANT FOODWORKS LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing)

section 92A (2)(g) of the Act in respect of the transaction of the Appellant with the third parties namely Domino Pizza Overseas Franchise BV (DPOF), Domino Pizza International Franchising Inc. (DPIF) & Dunkin Donuts Franchising LLC (DDFL). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/TPO erred incorrectly holding that entities with whom Appellant has undertaken transaction payment of royalty are Associate

DCIT,CIRCLE3-13(2), NEW DELHI vs. JUBILANT FOODWORKS LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing)

section 92A (2)(g) of the Act in respect of the transaction of the Appellant with the third parties namely Domino Pizza Overseas Franchise BV (DPOF), Domino Pizza International Franchising Inc. (DPIF) & Dunkin Donuts Franchising LLC (DDFL). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/TPO erred incorrectly holding that entities with whom Appellant has undertaken transaction payment of royalty are Associate

GARG ACRYLICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

2(24) read with section 36(1)(va) and not by section 43 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the act”) 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.14,400/- made by AO on account of disallowance of expenditure incurred on Club Fees of Directors

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. GARG ACRYLICS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

2(24) read with section 36(1)(va) and not by section 43 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the act”) 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.14,400/- made by AO on account of disallowance of expenditure incurred on Club Fees of Directors