NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case: 1.2 disregarding the Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’) as determined by the Appellant in the TP documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of Rules as well as fresh search; and in particular modifying/rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case: 1.2 disregarding the Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’) as determined by the Appellant in the TP documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of Rules as well as fresh search; and in particular modifying/rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case: 1.2 disregarding the Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’) as determined by the Appellant in the TP documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of Rules as well as fresh search; and in particular modifying/rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case: 1.2 disregarding the Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’) as determined by the Appellant in the TP documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of Rules as well as fresh search; and in particular modifying/rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant

HONDA CARSS INDIA LTD ( A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF HONDA MOTOR INDIA P.LTD ),GR. NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

3) of the Rules for marine freight & insurance charges and handling charges which are costs borne by the Appellant for import of goods in the related party segment and are not incurred for the purchase of domestic goods in unrelated party segment and such adjustments materially affected the price of such parts in the open market. Adjustment in respect

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. HTC INDIA PVT LTD, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

3 HTC India Pvt. Ltd. 7. On this issue, we are guided by the various judgments. Applicability of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the TP adjustments also came up for consideration before the ITAT Delhi. In the case of Mitsui Prime Advanced Composite India Pvt. Ltd. [2016-TII-234-ITAT- DEL-TP], after considering

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

SWATCH GROUP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), C.R. BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22] Swatch Group (India) Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, 4Th Floor, Rectangle-I, Plot No. D- Vs Circle 22(2), 4, Saket District Centre, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi, New Delhi-110017. 110002. Pan- Aafcs7516R Assessee Revenue

disallowances made in the assessment order. 2. That the Ld. AO/Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO")/ Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR. 22,35,89,000/-in respect of the advertising and marketing ("AMP") expenditure incurred by the Appellant. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

COMPASS INDIA SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

3)", "Section 144C(13)", "Section 144B", "Section 92C", "Section 92D", "Rule 10B", "Rule 10D", "Section 43B", "Section 270A" ], "issues": "The core issue revolves around the transfer pricing adjustment made by the revenue authorities on account of intra-group services (IT software licenses and IT enabled services) provided by the assessee's AEs. The revenue disallowed

COMPASS INDIA SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

92C of the Act, and\n2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. AO has grossly\nerred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act\nAll the above grounds are without prejudice to each other The Appellant craves leave\nto add, amend, vary, omit or substitute

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Disallowance on account of Rs. Rs. brand building expense 3,61,50,000/- 62,05,18,022 Total Assessed Income 255,67,96,909 Total Assessed Income 255,67,96,910 Rounded off u/s 288A of I.T. Act ” 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 27/01/2022, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. Goodyear India

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Disallowance on account of Rs. Rs. brand building expense 3,61,50,000/- 62,05,18,022 Total Assessed Income 255,67,96,909 Total Assessed Income 255,67,96,910 Rounded off u/s 288A of I.T. Act ” 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 27/01/2022, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. Goodyear India

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)

Disallowance of interest paid on compulsory convertible debentures (CCDs) ₹ 6,00 crores D. Interest on outstanding receivables ₹ 51,60,859/- E. Reselling of designated UC Singapore services ₹ 29,81,50,332/-. 3. Thereafter, the AO passed the draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act dt. 29.08.2023 wherein total adjustments of ₹ 43,60,48,214/- towards transfer pricing

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

92C (3) of the Act have been satisfied before disregarding the arm's length price determined by the Appellant and proceeding to determine the arm's length price. 3.11 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in not meeting the preconditions for making reference to the Additional Director of Income

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

92C (3) of the Act have been satisfied before disregarding the arm's length price determined by the Appellant and proceeding to determine the arm's length price. 3.11 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in not meeting the preconditions for making reference to the Additional Director of Income

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

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

92C and 92CA, the assessee's assertion that it has not claimed\ninterest in subsequent 3 years is completely irrelevant and inconsequential for arm's\nlength determination of the interest in accordance with TP provisions of the Act. Without\nprejudice to all the arguments on merits, just as a matter of observation, it appears from\nthe one-page computation given

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "92CA(2)", "10A", "92C(3)", "92D", "144C", "254", "271(1)(c)", "271AA", "271BA" ], "issues": "Whether the transfer pricing adjustments and disallowance

KAZSTORY ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12

disallowed the said amount of Rs. 3,72,58,527/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee in the assessment order 2 dated 29.12.2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 92CA(3) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned addition by taking the following