M/S. KANHA CAPITAL SERVICES LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 5, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

68 (Delhi), the following views were expressed (page 86) : "What we perceive and regard as correct position of law is that the court or tribunal should be convinced about the identity, creditwor thiness and genuineness of the transaction. The onus to prove the three factum is on the assessee as the facts are within the assessee's knowledge. Mere production

ITO,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AMB HOMES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekito, Ward 1 (1), Vs. M/S. Amb Homes Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. D-62, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110 024. (Pan : Aagca4596C) Co No.152/Del/2017 (In Ita No.2749/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Amb Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), D-62, Ground Floor, New Delhi. Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110 024. (Pan : Aagca4596C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.12.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi [Hereinafter

68. Based on the above principles, the Assessing Officer have made verifications in the case of the assessee relating to unaccounted money placed as share application money. The other case laws that need to be considered regarding explaining source of source are as under:- 2. PCIT Vs. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. (2016) 70 taxmann.com124 (Calcutta) " Para 29 - Whether receipt

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA)PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

92A, 92B, 92C, 92D and 92E, unless the context otherwise requires,— (i) "accountant" shall have the same meaning as in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288; Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 15:09:32 Signature Not Verified ITA 155/2022 & 156/2022 Page 5 of 38 (ii) "arm's length price" means a price

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

92A, 92B, 92C, 92D and 92E, unless the context otherwise requires,— (i) "accountant" shall have the same meaning as in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288; Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 15:09:32 Signature Not Verified ITA 155/2022 & 156/2022 Page 5 of 38 (ii) "arm's length price" means a price

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

92A(2)(g). The said CRS system is used by airlines, hotels, tour operators, car rental companies and others to market or distribute their service products for other information. 2.5 The assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Amadeus Spain on 1st October, 2004. The main activity of the assessee is to provide connectivity to the subscribers in India

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

92A(2)(g). The said CRS system is used by airlines, hotels, tour operators, car rental companies and others to market or distribute their service products for other information. 2.5 The assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Amadeus Spain on 1st October, 2004. The main activity of the assessee is to provide connectivity to the subscribers in India

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

92A(2)(g). The said CRS system is used by airlines, hotels, tour operators, car rental companies and others to market or distribute their service products for other information. 2.5 The assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Amadeus Spain on 1st October, 2004. The main activity of the assessee is to provide connectivity to the subscribers in India

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

92A of the Income Tax Act, is mandatorily required to use the foreign trademark and/or logo on its products and/or their containers, packaging, etc, appropriate payment in this regard should be made by the foreign entity to the domestic entity, on account of the benefit it derives in the form of marketing intangibles, obtained by it from such mandatory

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

92A of the Income Tax Act, is mandatorily required to use the foreign trademark and/or logo on its products and/or their containers, packaging, etc, appropriate payment in this regard should be made by the foreign entity to the domestic entity, on account of the benefit it derives in the form of marketing intangibles, obtained by it from such mandatory

ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INPUT OUTPUT INC.),GURGAON vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ground nos

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Stay No. 206/Del/2016 ( In Ita No. 1607/Del/2015) Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 & Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 Ion Geophysical Corporation Vs. Dcit Circle-2, (Formerly Known As Dehradun. “Input Output Inc.) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 7Th Floor, Building No. 10, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Dlf City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabci 6763 Q & Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Dcit Circle-2, Vs. Ion Geophysical Corporation (Appellant) ( Respondent)

92A to 92F of the Act and Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules). 10. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP has failed to provide any rationale for attributing income at the rate of 15% of gross receipts 11. That the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act to the Appellant. 4. Apropos

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION, GURGAON

In the result ground nos

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Stay No. 206/Del/2016 ( In Ita No. 1607/Del/2015) Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 & Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 Ion Geophysical Corporation Vs. Dcit Circle-2, (Formerly Known As Dehradun. “Input Output Inc.) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 7Th Floor, Building No. 10, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Dlf City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabci 6763 Q & Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Dcit Circle-2, Vs. Ion Geophysical Corporation (Appellant) ( Respondent)

92A to 92F of the Act and Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules). 10. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP has failed to provide any rationale for attributing income at the rate of 15% of gross receipts 11. That the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act to the Appellant. 4. Apropos

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.

68. On an overall conspectus of the various decisions handed down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court insofar as Fixed Place PE and DAPE are concerned as well as the language of Article 5, we have no hesitation in 22 holding that the LO failed to meet the threshold requirements so as to constitute

GARG ACRYLICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

68 of the I.T. I.T.As. No. 5214, 5915/Del/18 5 Act, 1961 by treating as unexplained credits the amounts claimed to have been received by the assessee as Share Application money and Share Premium Money during the year. 5. The appellate crave leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. GARG ACRYLICS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

68 of the I.T. I.T.As. No. 5214, 5915/Del/18 5 Act, 1961 by treating as unexplained credits the amounts claimed to have been received by the assessee as Share Application money and Share Premium Money during the year. 5. The appellate crave leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD.,, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,561/- (i.e. Rs. 31,31,05,771/- under the non-IT segment and Rs. 8,12,62,790/- under the IT segment) by the Ld. DRP. 17. On this issue, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee right at the onset submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO and the CIT(A) in respect of the AMP expenditure