MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

disallowance made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

disallowance made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/ DEPUTY/ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, A-36, Mehtab House, Circle-10(1), Mohan Co-Op. Estate, Delhi. Mathura Road, Delhi – 110 044. Pan: Aaach7474G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule, Ca & Ms Hemlata Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

TP documentation was Method: Cost Plus Method (‘CPM’)Tested Party NCPM:5%; Arm’s length NCPM: 3.47% - 6.56% 3 (median: 4.64%). Service fee to the extent of cost is allowed by the TPO/AO however, the mark up charged thereon by the AE is disallowed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

TP principles 12.4 That the assessing officers/TP0 erred on facts and in law in separately examining the international transactions entered into by the appellant, not appreciating that such transactions being closely linked have been appropriately benchmarked considering entity wide profitability 12.5 That the TPO / DRP erred on facts and in law in rejecting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

TP principles 12.4 That the assessing officers/TP0 erred on facts and in law in separately examining the international transactions entered into by the appellant, not appreciating that such transactions being closely linked have been appropriately benchmarked considering entity wide profitability 12.5 That the TPO / DRP erred on facts and in law in rejecting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\N\Nita No. 4477/Del/2024\N[Assessment Year: 2020-21]\N\N| Genpact Services Llc,\Nplot 22A & B, Sector 18,\Nudyog Vihar,\Ngurgaon, Haryana-122002\Npan-Aaccg3353P\Nappellant\N|\Nassistant Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-International Tax-1(3)(1),\Nvs Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\N| Appellant By\Nshri Vishal Kalra, Adv.,\Nms. Reema Malik, Adv.& Ms.\Nsnigdha Gautam, Adv.\Nrespondent By\Nshri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N30.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N31.07.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The\Nassessing Officer Dated 29.07.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act') In Pursuance To The\Ndirections Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 25.06.2024 Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2020-21.\N2. The Relevant Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Indian Branch Office Of\Ngenpact Llc, A Usa Company. The Assessee Is A Service Provider\Nrendering Off-Shore Support Services Akin To Bpo Services, Including\Ncollections/Analytics Call Centre Services & Other Back-Office Support\Nservices To Its Aes. The Assessee Is Responsible For Rendering The\Ndesignated Bpo / Collections Services From Its Facility / Infrastructure In\Nindia. As For Assessment Year 2020-21, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of\Nincome (Roi') Declaring An Income Of Inr 20,57,10,540/- On 07.01.2021.\Nduring The Course Of Scrutiny, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S\N92Ca Of The Act To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo') To Determine The\Narm'S Length Price (‘Alp') In Respect Of International Transaction Entered\Ninto By The Assessee.\N2.

method and asked\nthe assessee to show cause why the amount of Rs.9,32,12,889/- should\nnot be disallowed, which was the same amount of disallowance as\ndetermined by the TPO. The said show-cause notice is placed on page\nno.1 to 8 of the Draft Assessment Order.\n2. 4. The Assessing Officer after considering the reply

MARKS AND SPENCER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

method prescribed as per the Income Tax Rules. The disallowance of 6% during the current year has been merely made on the pretest that in the earlier year , the royalty paid was @ 1%. Hence, it is directed that the TPO/AO shall undertake appropriate TP

AVL TECHNICAL CENTRE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TP addition, proposed to disallow Staff Welfare Expenses amounting to Rs. 1,21,599/- being 5% of 24,31,798/- on ad- hoc basis. The final assessment order came to be passed on 28/03/2016 by A.O by assessing the income of the assessee as under:- Returned Income Rs. 17,960/- Add: Adjustment u/s 92CA, on account of purchase

GATES INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TP adjustment, for comparison and instead in the guise of CUP method, he questioned the necessity of management fee expense and benefit derived therefrom by the assessee. The TPO, instead of benchmarking the international transaction of management fee, disallowed

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

TP principles\n12.4 That the assessing officers/TP0 erred on facts and in law in separately\nexamining the international transactions entered into by the appellant, not\nappreciating that such transactions being closely linked have been\nappropriately benchmarked considering entity wide profitability\n12.5 That the TPO / DRP erred on facts and in law in rejecting\nTransactional Net Margin Method (TNMM

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

method and held nil as Intra-Group Services. Undisputedly, services were provided by PICO Hong Kong. Despite order being set aside, Ld.TPO maintained the same. Reference to TP Study Report at pages 2272 to 2323 and Event Management 2080 is important. Ld. TPO wrongly held no disallowances

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM (BY DEEPALI DESIGNS EXHIBITS (P.) LTD.),DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

method and held nil as Intra-Group Services. Undisputedly, services were provided by PICO Hong Kong. Despite order being set aside, Ld.TPO maintained the same. Reference to TP Study Report at pages 2272 to 2323 and Event Management 2080 is important. Ld. TPO wrongly held no disallowances

YUTAKA AUTOPARTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

Method in order to provide for excessive depreciation in the case Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies. 6. In law and on facts and circumstances of the case the appellant in the interest of justice, may be allowed to adduce additional evidence as may be necessary in support of the grounds raised hereinabove after following due procedures laid down

YUTAKA AUTOPARTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

Method in order to provide for excessive depreciation in the case Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies. 6. In law and on facts and circumstances of the case the appellant in the interest of justice, may be allowed to adduce additional evidence as may be necessary in support of the grounds raised hereinabove after following due procedures laid down

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(2), NEW DELHI vs. YUTAKA AUTOPARTS INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

Method in order to provide for excessive depreciation in the case Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies. 6. In law and on facts and circumstances of the case the appellant in the interest of justice, may be allowed to adduce additional evidence as may be necessary in support of the grounds raised hereinabove after following due procedures laid down

JUBILANT GENERICS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), G.B. NAGAR

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

disallowing an amount of Rs.12,31,686 u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act in\nignorance of the fact that the said amount is deductible under Income\nComputation and Disclosure Standards notified u/s 145(2) of the Act.\n\n14. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AD erred in\ninitiating penalty proceedings under Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BENETTON INDIA P.LTD, GURGAON

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 496/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 25B, Block Infocity Vs. Tax, Circle : 4 (2), Sector : 34, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana.Pan:Aaacd1013F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, Sh. Ankul Goel & Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advs Department By: Shri Mahesh Shah, [Cit] D.R. & Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

Method ('TNMM') on entity level, disallowing the entire royalty and making a further adjustment on advertisement expenses, while doing so the Ld. TPO further erred in disregarding the favorable precedence in Appellant's own case wherein the Hon'ble ITAT held that royalty cannot be disallowed and TNMM cannot be used considering the facts of the case; Benetton India

BENETTON INDIA P.LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 496/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 25B, Block Infocity Vs. Tax, Circle : 4 (2), Sector : 34, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana.Pan:Aaacd1013F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, Sh. Ankul Goel & Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advs Department By: Shri Mahesh Shah, [Cit] D.R. & Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

Method ('TNMM') on entity level, disallowing the entire royalty and making a further adjustment on advertisement expenses, while doing so the Ld. TPO further erred in disregarding the favorable precedence in Appellant's own case wherein the Hon'ble ITAT held that royalty cannot be disallowed and TNMM cannot be used considering the facts of the case; Benetton India

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE - 10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhumboldt Wedag India Private Ltd., Vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asstt. A – 36, Mehtab House, Commission Of Income-Tax, Mohan Co-Op. Estate, Mathura Road, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi – 110 044. Circle 10(1), Delhi. (Pan : Aaach7474G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajineesh Verma, Ca Ms. Hem Lata Verma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Order : 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 05.09.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) Subsequent To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp)/Tpo Vide Order Dated 07.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Pertaining To Transfer Pricing Matters: Adjustment Rs.10,486,841 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. Drp'), The Learned Transfer Pricing

TP documentation whereas the TPO did not follow any prescribed method and the entire markup is disallowed without giving any reasons