MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

TP Study Report and therefore, it would be erroneous to conclude that the assessee is seeking to make out a new case by changing the method of benchmarking from TNMM to CUP method for the first time before the Tribunal. The internal CUP available in the instant case is the most direct and realistic method to evaluate market price

M/S. G4S SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

disallowance of adjustment made by the assessee in its TP study to determine the ALP. Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee, while calculating operating expenses for computation of margin, had excluded certain extra ordinary expenses pertaining to prior period expenses, excess lease rent debited to P & L account due to change in the method

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

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

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

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

method on the one hand, and yet seeking to question appropriateness of individual elements of operating cost on the other, thereby failing to appreciate fundamental TP principles; 15.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs. 286,00,00,000/- in relation to the advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

method and asked the assessee to show cause why the amount of Rs.9,32,12,889/- should not be disallowed, which was the same amount of disallowance as determined by the TPO. The said show-cause notice is placed on page no.1 to 8 of the Draft Assessment Order. 2. 4. The Assessing Officer after considering the reply

NIKON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.789/Del./2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Nikon India (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-3 Plot No. 17, Sec-32, Gurgaon. Institutional Area Gurgaon. (Pan No: Aaccn5100F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Mukesh Butani & Gourav Gupta, Advocates S/Shri Suchint Majmuder & Nipun Arora, Cas Revenue By : Shri Anurag Sharma, Senior Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2015 O R D E R Per A.T. Varkey: This Appeal By The Assessee Under Section 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Directed Against The Final Order Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) / Assessing Officer (Ao) On 05.01.2015 U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax

method with operating profit/sales as the profit level indicator and selected the following comparable companies in the TP study to benchmark its international transactions: Sr.No. Name of the comparable company Gross OP/Sales (%) Margin(%) 1 Allied Photographics India Ltd. 9.83 0.85 2 CCS Infotech Ltd. 6.31 2.31 3 Compuage Infocom Ltd. 6.03 2.41 4 Computer Point Ltd. 6.27 -0.48 5 Empower

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No. 15, Circle-5(1), Okhla Industrial Estate-Iii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 (Pan: Aaics9919F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee : S/Shri Nageswar Rao, Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv. Shri Parth, Adv. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.03.2019

TP study applied TNMM as the most appropriate method. In the context of disallowance of expenditure towards Group medical insurance

M/S. LUMAX INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2010-11 Lumax Industries Ltd., Jcit, Range- 4, B-85/86, Mayapuri Industrial New Delhi. Vs. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacl1126D (Appellant) (Respondent)

TP study, the royalty transaction was analyzed by him separately under CUP method. According to him, the Act does not preclude the TPO to apply appropriate method for each 4 class of transactions like payments for intangible in the form of royalty and also apply TNMM at the enterprise level. 5. The TPO also did not accept the CUP used

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

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Gosain[A.Y 2007-08] M/S Pernod Ricard [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, [Formerly Known As Central Circle -31 Seagram India Pvt Ltd New Delhi 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi Pan: Aaacs 4781 P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Smt. Rashi Khanna, Adv. Shri Yojit Pareek, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit-Dr

TP adjustment is not expected to be made by deducing from the difference between the 'excessive' AMP expenditure incurred by the Assessee and the AMP expenditure of a comparable entity that an international transaction exists and then proceed to make the adjustment of the difference in order to determine the value of such AMP expenditure incurred

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

TP analysis came to the conclusion that by applying the CUP method, the arm’s length price of the transaction of payment for services availed for the “second line support including software related errors” is determined as nil as against Rs.34,29,13,561/- determined by the assessee and thereby enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs.34

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Unit 401-404, 4Th Floor, Circle-6(1), Copia Corporate Suites, New Delhi. Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadcm8454G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26Th October, 2010 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Nos.1,2,3 & 16 Being General In Nature Are Dismissed. 3. Grounds Of Appeal No.4,5,6 & 12 Which Relate To Disallowance Of Technical Fee

disallow the profit margin charged by the AE, but the costs involved have to be allowed. 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Hon’ble DRP/AO has erred in the use of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (‘CUP’) method for the benchmarking of the transaction involving technical assistance provided to the Appellant by its AE, and the use of such

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

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

method of creating the aforesaid provision. 6.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in adding back the provision for advertisement expenses incurred at head office, aggregating to Rs.8,92,49,490 (inadvertently Rs.2,89,94,000 has been added), while computing „book profit‟ under section 115 JB of the Act holding the same

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs. Exxon Mobil Lubricants P. Ltd., Circle-11(1), Ernst & Young Tower, New Delhi. B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. Pan Aabce0207H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit- Dr Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

TP report itself has mentioned that CUP was rejected as the most appropriate method, therefore, CUP method cannot be applied. So far as trading segment is concerned, it is his submission that here also there is no complete analysis of data regarding the nature of filters to be applied and list of final comparables. It is his submission that segmental

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