ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MMTC LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 3378/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Tax, Circle-5(1), Core 1, Scope Complex, 7 New Delhi-110002 Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 14.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi.

92E, the assessee company obtained a report, in Form 3CEB dated 16/09/2009 from M/s N.K. 4 MMTC Ltd. Bhargava & Co., Chartered Accountants, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CA) 3. This report along with Transfer Pricing Report (termed as Transfer Pricing Review) was filed before the AO vide letter dated 30.09.2009 on the same date. 4. This report was prepared

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S. PEPSI FOODS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

ASPECT SOFTWARE INC.,USA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand partly

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2012-13 Ay: 2013-14

u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was issued and served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain how the factual matrix and business model of this year is different from Assessment Year 2007-08 and why the assessment should not be completed on the lines of earlier Assessment Years. Vide its reply

ASPECT SOFTWARE INC.,USA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand partly

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2012-13 Ay: 2013-14

u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was issued and served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain how the factual matrix and business model of this year is different from Assessment Year 2007-08 and why the assessment should not be completed on the lines of earlier Assessment Years. Vide its reply

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.

271 or section 271BA, if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction,— (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 92D; (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so; or (iii) maintains or furnishes

M/S. ZTE CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground is

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

92E of the Act. 11. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has grossly erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, holding that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars and has concealed the particulars of its income

ZTE CORPORATION vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground is

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

92E of the Act. 11. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has grossly erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, holding that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars and has concealed the particulars of its income

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ZTE CORPORATION,

In the result, this ground is

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

92E of the Act. 11. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has grossly erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, holding that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars and has concealed the particulars of its income

ZTE CORPORATION vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground is

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

92E of the Act. 11. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has grossly erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, holding that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars and has concealed the particulars of its income

AVAYA INTERNATIONAL SALES LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- INT. TAXATION 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaavaya International Sales Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Circle-International Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, Taxation 1(1)(1), Dlf Centre Court Building, New Delhi Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Dcit, Vs. Avaya International Sales Ltd, Circle-1(1)(1), C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, International Taxation, New Delhi Dlf Centre Court Building, Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2023

u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the AO, ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee Avaya International Sales Limited (Avaya Ireland' or 'the Assessee') is a company incorporated

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1)(1), INT. TAXN., NEW DELHI vs. AVAYA INTERNAIONAL SALES LIMITED, IRELAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaavaya International Sales Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Circle-International Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, Taxation 1(1)(1), Dlf Centre Court Building, New Delhi Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Dcit, Vs. Avaya International Sales Ltd, Circle-1(1)(1), C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, International Taxation, New Delhi Dlf Centre Court Building, Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2023

u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the AO, ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee Avaya International Sales Limited (Avaya Ireland' or 'the Assessee') is a company incorporated

M/S SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INDIA (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Sony Mobile Dcit Communications India (P) Vs Circle 24 (1) Ltd. (Now Merged With Sony New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd.) A-31, Mohan Coop Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aakcs7996N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Sony Mobile Acit Communications India (P) Vs Range- 9 Ltd. (Now Merged With Sony New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd.), A-31, Mohan Coop Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aakcs7996N (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 143 (3) / 144 C by the Assessing Officer for the A. Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. Since identical ground are involved in both the appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Facts

M/S. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Sony Mobile Dcit Communications India (P) Vs Circle 24 (1) Ltd. (Now Merged With Sony New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd.) A-31, Mohan Coop Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aakcs7996N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Sony Mobile Acit Communications India (P) Vs Range- 9 Ltd. (Now Merged With Sony New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd.), A-31, Mohan Coop Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aakcs7996N (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 143 (3) / 144 C by the Assessing Officer for the A. Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. Since identical ground are involved in both the appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Facts