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

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

92D. (See judgment dated 16th December, 2013 in ITA No. 306/2012 titled Li & Fung India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax of the Delhi High Court). Five Methods 65. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (‗CUP Method‘, for short) compares price charged for the property or service in a controlled transaction with the price charged for comparable property or service

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

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

property associated with the sale (vii) Foreign currency receipt (viii) Alternatives realistically available with the buyer and the seller. 81. In OECD Transfer Pricing guidelines at II-3 paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 it is states as follows: "2.8 It may be difficult to find a transaction between independent enterprises that is similar enough to a controlled transacting such that

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

property associated with the sale (vii) Foreign currency receipt (viii) Alternatives realistically available with the buyer and the seller. 81. In OECD Transfer Pricing guidelines at II-3 paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 it is states as follows: "2.8 It may be difficult to find a transaction between independent enterprises that is similar enough to a controlled transacting such that

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.

3), the assessing officer in the impugned draft assessment order has proposed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AA of the Act alleging non-disclosure of certain international transactions.In this regard, he brought to our notice the provisions of 45 Section 271AA of the Act which read as under: “Penalty for failure to keep and maintain information and document

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

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

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

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

92D of the Act. 3.4. That on fact of the case and in law, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in application of inappropriate filters based on different financial year end, export service income and employee cost for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 3.5. That on the facts of the case

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

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. 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, 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

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

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

92D of the Act Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’) and in particular modifying/ rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant; 1.4. committing certain factual errors in accept- reject of comparables included in/ excluded from in the final set of companies; 1.5. disregarding multiple year/ prior years’ data as used

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

92D of the Act Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’) and in particular modifying/ rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant; 1.4. committing certain factual errors in accept- reject of comparables included in/ excluded from in the final set of companies; 1.5. disregarding multiple year/ prior years’ data as used

M/S. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble, [Assessment Year: 2008-09]

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules; (ii) not appreciating that payment towards service fees/reimbursements is closely linked to the primary business segments/ functions of the appellant and erred in analysing the transaction separately for the determination of arm’s length price; (iii) rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method f'TNMM”) adopted by the appellant

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