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

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

92C of the Act, and held the impugned inter-unit purchases to be not at arm‟s length price on the ground that the profit margin of the non-eligible units, viz., Dharuhera, Gurgaon and Neemran aunits at 7.77%, 4.13% and 18.24% respectively ought to have been charged on such transfer of components. Accordingly, the TPO/AO concluded that the appellant

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 03, NEW DELHI vs. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

house property number to income from 155-160 business and profession 8 Deletion of Decided in Decided in Para number Dismissed addition on favour of favour of the 13 of the order account of the assesse assesse as per notional as per paragraph rent/additional paragraph number 20 of annual letting number the order vale in respect

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

house or flat) and owned by a ‘non- natural person’ (NNP). A non-natural person is a corporate entity, such as a company, limited liability partnership, trust or investment scheme. To be classed as a dwelling, the property must be: • Used exclusively or in part as a residence • In the process of being adapted or constructed as a residence

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

2. Ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in determining total income of the Appellant at INR 7,218,234,160 as against a returned income of INR 5,526,284,370. Part I - Transfer Pricing Matters 3. That on facts and in law, Hon'ble DRP and the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO erred in making an adjustment

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

92C (2) of the Act, while determining the arm's length price of the international transactions of the Appellant. 2.13 By not appreciating that there was no intention whatsoever on the part of the Appellant to shift profits outside India by under-reporting revenue since the Appellant was eligible to claim 100 percent of such profits as tax exemption under

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

House Circle 2(2) Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACA 0364 L [Appellant] [Respondent] Assessee by : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Revenue by : Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 29.10.2018 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

92C of the Act, and held the impugned inter-unit purchases to be not at arm’s length price on the ground that the profit margin of the non-eligible units, viz., Gurgaon and Dharuhera unit at 7.69% and 7.03% respectively ought to have been charged on such transfer of components/semi-finished goods. Accordingly, the TPO/AO came to the conclusion that

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

2% as against 3% charged by the TPO and accordingly restricted the arm’s length price at Rs.22.58 lakhs. 81. So far as Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that Rate of 3% is mentioned in the amended agreement and the assessee could not meet its obligation to bear entire marketing expenses and therefore, Dabur

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

2% as against 3% charged by the TPO and accordingly restricted the arm’s length price at Rs.22.58 lakhs. 81. So far as Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that Rate of 3% is mentioned in the amended agreement and the assessee could not meet its obligation to bear entire marketing expenses and therefore, Dabur

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

2% as against 3% charged by the TPO and accordingly restricted the arm’s length price at Rs.22.58 lakhs. 81. So far as Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that Rate of 3% is mentioned in the amended agreement and the assessee could not meet its obligation to bear entire marketing expenses and therefore, Dabur

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

2% as against 3% charged by the TPO and accordingly restricted the arm’s length price at Rs.22.58 lakhs. 81. So far as Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that Rate of 3% is mentioned in the amended agreement and the assessee could not meet its obligation to bear entire marketing expenses and therefore, Dabur

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

2% of the value of each international transaction may be levied for failure to report international transaction in Form No.3CEB.In this regard, reference is made to section 92E which provides that parties, who have entered into an international transaction during the previous year, shall obtain a report from an accountant and furnish such report on or before the specified date

ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case; 1.2. ignoring the fact that the Appellant is entitled to tax holiday under section 10A of the Act on its profits and therefore would not have any untoward motive of deriving a tax advantage by manipulating transfer prices of its international transactions; 1.3. disregarding the ALP as determined

ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case; 1.2. ignoring the fact that the Appellant is entitled to tax holiday under section 10A of the Act on its profits and therefore would not have any untoward motive of deriving a tax advantage by manipulating transfer prices of its international transactions; 1.3. disregarding the ALP as determined

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

property of the AE. For instance, ‘Alpenliebe, Mangofillz’, a variant of one of the brands owned by the AE that was developed in India, is registered as a trademark in the name of the AE. The TPO came to the conclusion that the 11 assessee incurred AMP expenses for promoting the brand / trade name which was owned

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

92C (2) of the act.\n\n33. Further in case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 ,\nexternal corporate of purchase price of power from SEB is used as a\ncomparable discarding the Indian energy exchange rate by the learned CIT –\nA, and the same order has not been challenged before the higher forum, it\nbecomes final. This shows

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

92C (2) of the act.\n\n33. Further in case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 ,\nexternal corporate of purchase price of power from SEB is used as a\ncomparable discarding the Indian energy exchange rate by the learned CIT –\nA, and the same order has not been challenged before the higher forum, it\nbecomes final. This shows

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

92C of the Act. 6.2 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in holding that for determining the arm’s length Price of international transaction of purchase of spare parts and components, CUP method would be the most appropriate method. 6.3 That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that since operating