JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 92(4) of the Act). 137. The question of aggregation and disaggregation of transactions when the TNM Method or even in other methods is sought to be applied, must have reference to the strength and weaknesses of the TNM Method or the applicable method. Aggregation of transactions is desirable and not merely permissible, if the nature of transaction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 92(4) of the Act). 137. The question of aggregation and disaggregation of transactions when the TNM Method or even in other methods is sought to be applied, must have reference to the strength and weaknesses of the TNM Method or the applicable method. Aggregation of transactions is desirable and not merely permissible, if the nature of transaction

ETT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIAN EXPRESS MULTIMEDIA LTD),NEW DELHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL-II, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowed, he strongly relied the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation was reported in (2013) 357 ITR 388. He also strongly relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited ITA No.705/Del/2017 order dated 05.09.2017. He further submitted that if Assessing Officer

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

disallowance of Rs.7,10,677/- made by the AO invoking provision of section 14A read with Rule 8D was upheld by the DRP. (e) Addition on account of interest on Income Tax refund u/s 244A– The said addition was also upheld by the DRP. 2.8 The TPO thereafter passed an order dated 29th January, 2015 giving effect to the above

ITO WARD - 23(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHREE BHAWANI POWER PROJECTS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

disallowing the deduction claimed by the Assessee and making the addition, mainly relied upon the facts that the report in form No. 10CCB, which was filed on 17.04.2019 in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on dated 13.04.2019, was not in possession of the Assessee as it was neither filed earlier nor along with the return of income

ITO WARD - 23(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHREE BHAWANI POWER PROJECTS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

disallowing the deduction claimed by the Assessee and making the addition, mainly relied upon the facts that the report in form No. 10CCB, which was filed on 17.04.2019 in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on dated 13.04.2019, was not in possession of the Assessee as it was neither filed earlier nor along with the return of income

M/S. BACARDI INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowing entire amount of royalty paid under 5 Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd. section 37(1) merely based on assumption and surmise is bad in law. 1.15 Ground 15: Without prejudice, the Hon’ble DRP and the Learned AO/TPO have grossly erred in re- computing arm’s length price of the impugned transaction involving payment of royalty

PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

disallowances proposed in toto. 10. Consequently, the final assessment order dated 31.3.2021 was passed by the National e-Assessment Centre giving effect to the directions issued by the DRP. The present appeal emanates out of the said final assessment order. 11. The first issue raised in this appeal is the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the entire ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 8 of 134 deduction of Rs.1,36,68,21,506/ crores claimed by the appellant under sections 80-IB and 80-IC of the Act in respect of profits derived by five separate and independent eligible units. 12.1 That the AO/ DRP erred

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

disallowance made in the original assessment order. Copy of the all orders for the assessment year 2011-12 are enclosed in part 7. Additional ground of appeal relating to deduction of education cess (including secondary and higher education cess) of Rs.1,27,08,933 on income tax paid. Refer application for admission wherein cases deciding the issue in favour

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

disallowance made in the original assessment order. Copy of the all orders for the assessment year 2011-12 are enclosed in part 7. Additional ground of appeal relating to deduction of education cess (including secondary and higher education cess) of Rs.1,27,08,933 on income tax paid. Refer application for admission wherein cases deciding the issue in favour

BODYCARE CREATIONS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, KARNATKA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance of bonus payment amounting to Rs.30,66,187/- carried out by revenue by taking resort to Section 43B of the Act alleging non-payment of outstanding liability before due date of filing of return of income stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.9548/DEL/2019 2 3. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METALS RUSSIA INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri T.S. Kapoor

92E read with section 271 BA of the Act are not applicable. The provisions of section 92D read with section 271G of the Act are not applicable.” 15 ITA.No.108/Del./2014 M/s. Metals Russia India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 3.5. The assessee further objected to the Order of the A.O. to apply provisions of Section 44BBB

M/S. SIS LIVE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishisis Live Acit, C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Central Circle-17, Room No. Vs. Golf View Corporate Tower B, 356, E-2, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed by SIS Live in its ROI. In view of the fact that the said transaction did not have a bearing on SIS Live's tax liability for the said year, SIS Live took a position that provisions of Section 92 did not apply to the said transaction. • Reimbursement of expenses to AE (INR 2,366,572): During the said

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU vs. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD

disallowed both under Sections 37 and 92 of the Act “it will result in double addition to the extent of the original amount incurred for the promotion of the brand of the foreign AE de hors the mark-up”. It 2015:DHC:10430-DB ITA Nos. 610/2014 and 228/2015 Page 17 of 35 was, accordingly held that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU vs. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD

disallowed both under Sections 37 and 92 of the Act “it will result in double addition to the extent of the original amount incurred for the promotion of the brand of the foreign AE de hors the mark-up”. It 2015:DHC:10430-DB ITA Nos. 610/2014 and 228/2015 Page 17 of 35 was, accordingly held that

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

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 is applied or proposed

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

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 is applied or proposed