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)

3 shall exercise such powers and perform such function of Transfer Pricing Officers as mentioned in Section 92CA for the purpose of sections 92C and 92D of the Act, in respect of persons or classes of persons mentioned in column 5:" 5. It was submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate that the expression "…..the Assessing Officer considers

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

disallowance under section 37 of the Act. It is a case where an adjustment has been made under section 92C(4) of the Act, after the Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm's length price at nil under section 92CA(3

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

disallowed on the ground of the same being contingent in nature. He further submitted that similar provision for increase in prices as at the end of the year was accepted and allowed in Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), vide order dated 30.04.2021, at an income of Rs. 31,66,82,06,82 1-/- under the normal provisions and at book profit of Rs. 43,79,43,08,839 under section 1l5JB of the Act. Re: Transfer Pricing Adjustment under section 92CA relating to inter unit

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

3) of section 92C. Sub-section (4) of section 92CA provides that on receipt of the order of the TPO, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm’s length price determined by the TPO. Thus, whereas the determination of the arm’s length price, - - - is required to be done

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

3 ITA Nos. 910 to 914/Del./2015 disbursement were reimbursement and directed that if found so, same be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel before us submitted that all factual information in respect of the ‘trade scheme’ to ‘Sales Promoters’ are already available on record and in additional ground, the assessee is seeking remedy by way of a legal ground

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

3 ITA Nos. 910 to 914/Del./2015 disbursement were reimbursement and directed that if found so, same be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel before us submitted that all factual information in respect of the ‘trade scheme’ to ‘Sales Promoters’ are already available on record and in additional ground, the assessee is seeking remedy by way of a legal ground

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

3 ITA Nos. 910 to 914/Del./2015 disbursement were reimbursement and directed that if found so, same be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel before us submitted that all factual information in respect of the ‘trade scheme’ to ‘Sales Promoters’ are already available on record and in additional ground, the assessee is seeking remedy by way of a legal ground

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowed whole of the amount of Rs. 34,11,787/- for Employee Secondment and Rs. 12,29,949/- out of payment for Business Restructuring. He, accordingly, passed order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on 18.10.2016 proposing total adjustment of Rs. 46,41,736/- with the remarks that this shall be treated as the cumulative adjustment under section 92C

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowed whole of the amount of Rs. 34,11,787/- for Employee Secondment and Rs. 12,29,949/- out of payment for Business Restructuring. He, accordingly, passed order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on 18.10.2016 proposing total adjustment of Rs. 46,41,736/- with the remarks that this shall be treated as the cumulative adjustment under section 92C

CEVA FREIGHT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

3) and has not passed a speaking order. 1.11. By relying upon data of the comparables for financial year 2006-07 only, disregarding the multiple year data approach followed by the Appellant. Further, the Ld. TPO has also erred in laws and on facts by relying upon updated data of the Comparables which was not available to the Appellant

M/S. CEVA FREIGHT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

3) and has not passed a speaking order. 1.11. By relying upon data of the comparables for financial year 2006-07 only, disregarding the multiple year data approach followed by the Appellant. Further, the Ld. TPO has also erred in laws and on facts by relying upon updated data of the Comparables which was not available to the Appellant

CEVA FREIGHT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

3) and has not passed a speaking order. 1.11. By relying upon data of the comparables for financial year 2006-07 only, disregarding the multiple year data approach followed by the Appellant. Further, the Ld. TPO has also erred in laws and on facts by relying upon updated data of the Comparables which was not available to the Appellant

M/S CEVA FREIGHT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

3) and has not passed a speaking order. 1.11. By relying upon data of the comparables for financial year 2006-07 only, disregarding the multiple year data approach followed by the Appellant. Further, the Ld. TPO has also erred in laws and on facts by relying upon updated data of the Comparables which was not available to the Appellant

CEVA FREIGHT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

3) and has not passed a speaking order. 1.11. By relying upon data of the comparables for financial year 2006-07 only, disregarding the multiple year data approach followed by the Appellant. Further, the Ld. TPO has also erred in laws and on facts by relying upon updated data of the Comparables which was not available to 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

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