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)

houses, the main source of revenue is advertisement charges. The advertisers approach classified agents or accredited advertising agencies to advertise. The agents/agencies upon receipt of advertisement requirement procure the airtime from the media companies at a discount. Advertisers while making payment to accredited agencies duly deduct tax as required under law under section 194C of the Act on the amount

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., 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)

houses, the main source of revenue is advertisement charges. The advertisers approach classified agents or accredited advertising agencies to advertise. The agents/agencies upon receipt of advertisement requirement procure the airtime from the media companies at a discount. Advertisers while making payment to accredited agencies duly deduct tax as required under law under section 194C of the Act on the amount

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CORNELL OVERSEAS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 28.02.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi.

92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm's length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him: Provided that an opportunity shall be given by the Assessing Officer by serving a notice calling upon the assessee

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

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

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR 2 Stay No. 475, 476/d/2018& ITA no. 1662/d/2016 (Amadeus India P. Ltd.) Date of Hearing 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : These appeals have been filed challenging additions/ disallowances made by the 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.:

Housing Ltd. 1.00 12. Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion Organization 0.8 13. Usha Breco Ltd. 4.97 14. Vista Entertainment Ltd. 3.16 15. Adrenalin Esystem Ltd. 6.74 16. Interworld Digital Ltd. 0.10 17. NSE IT Ltd. 0.01 18. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd. 2.03 19. Nucleus Software Exports Ltd. 1.03 20. Powersoft Global Solutions Ltd. 0.35 12 21. Supertech Solutions

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

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

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

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O. P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Tower-B, First Floor, Global Circle-3(2), Room No.380-B, Business Park, Mg Road, C.R. Building, New Delhi Gurgaon Pan :Aaeca3592N (Appellant) (Respondent)

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules; 4 4.2 rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') as the most appropriate method to test the transaction pertaining to availing of intra group services, without appreciating that the transaction is closely linked to the function of the Appellant of providing ITES and MSS; 4.3 applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price

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

1) , New Delhi appreciated that, if significant differences, CUP method will not produce a reliable measure of an arm's length result. It would be noted that in order to apply the CUP method, the comparable uncontrolled transaction have to satisfy the strict comparability criteria. Hon‘ble ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT

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

1) , New Delhi appreciated that, if significant differences, CUP method will not produce a reliable measure of an arm's length result. It would be noted that in order to apply the CUP method, the comparable uncontrolled transaction have to satisfy the strict comparability criteria. Hon‘ble ITAT in the case of UCB India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT

RED FORT SHAHJAHAN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-21(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishired Fort Shahjahan Properties Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-21(1), N-226, Lgf, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcr6247E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Properties Pvt Ltd { assessee, appellant} against the order of the deputy Commissioner of income tax – circle 21 (1), New Delhi (the learned assessing officer passed u/s 143 (3) read with section 144C of the income tax act, 1961 (the act) dated 24/10/2018. In the assessment order against the returned income of the assessee of rupees for 1674470/– transfer pricing adjustment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

92D and 92E, “international transaction” means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such

FIL INDIA BUSINESS & RESEARCH PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), C.R BUILDING , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

House,\nBarakhamba Road,\nNew Delhi-110001\nPAN:AABCF1572C\n(Appellant)\nDCIT,\nNational Faceless\nVs. Assessment Centre,\nDelhi.\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nShri Ravi Sharma, Adv. &\nShri Kshitij Bansal, CA\nDepartment by\nShri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR\n\nDate of hearing\n03.04.2025\nDate of pronouncement\n25.06.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:\n\nThe present appeal is filed

SANSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

houses, advertising agencies, marketing bodies etc.) and cannot be treated as related party transactions merely because some incidental benefit is said to accrue to the AEs. 24. The Ld. Counsel also made a without prejudice argument regarding the quantum and composition of AMP expenditure taken by the TPO. The TPO while determining the value of international transaction