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)

3 shall exercise such powers and perform such function of Transfer Pricing Officers as mentioned in Section 92CA for the purpose of sections 92C and 92D of the Act, in respect of persons or classes of persons mentioned in column 5:" 5. It was submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Advocate that the expression "…..the Assessing Officer

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

92C of the Act. 3.20 That the assessing officer/TPO erred on facts and in law in failing to appreciate that the appellant has long-term rights to use the trademark/ licensed intangibles and reaps all the benefits of the said AMP expenses and is thus the economic owner of any related marketing intangible. 3.21 That the assessing officer/TPO erred

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BIO RAD LABORATORIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92C(3) of the Act rendering his order void. During the course of hearing the ld DR has submitted that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has stayed the above judgment and therefore, the decision of the first appellate authority is erroneous as it relied on the stayed judgment. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court vide its order dated

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

92C(2) of the Act. 3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining addition of Rs. 70,95,787 on account of the alleged difference in the arm‘s length price of international transactions of interest charged on loan given to the associated enterprise, PT Jindal Indonesia by applying the interest rate

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

92C(2) of the Act. 3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining addition of Rs. 70,95,787 on account of the alleged difference in the arm‘s length price of international transactions of interest charged on loan given to the associated enterprise, PT Jindal Indonesia by applying the interest rate

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

92C. In sub-section 3 of section 144B, roles of Technical unit is clearly spelt out according to which, functions of technical unit includes assistance or advice on transfer pricing issues. During the course of performing such function, the technical unit can obtain advice from the TPO on the issue of determination of Arm’s Length price

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

3) of the Act and by the Ld. AO in his draft assessment order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO and the Ld. AO have erred in proposing and Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 29,09,79,383 (including Rs 24,68,35,593 under Section

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

3) of the Act and by the Ld. AO in his draft assessment order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. TPO and the Ld. AO have erred in proposing and Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 29,09,79,383 (including Rs 24,68,35,593 under Section

COMVERSE NETWORK SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon M/S. Comverse Network Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Dlf Infinity Tower-A, 2Nd Floor, Dlf Cyber City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon Pan : Aabcc3425B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. G.C. Srivastava & Daksh Bhardwaj, Advocates Respondent By Sh. T.M. Shiva Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 23/10/2012 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) , In Compliance To The Direction Of The Dispute Resolution Panel ( Drp) , Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’), In Respect Of Assessment Year 2008-09 Raising Following Grounds: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ao") Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) After Considering The Adjustments Proposed By The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (“Tpo”) In His Order Passed Under Section 92Ca(3) Of The Act & Subsequently Confirmed By The Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”).

92C of Act for the purposes of computing the ALP under section 92F of the Act. 14. The DRP has erred in confirming the additions proposed by the learned AO and erred in rejecting the objection filed against the draft assessment order. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

M/S. MITSUI & CO. INDIA PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are partly allowed and

Bench: Shri S.V.Mehrotrashri Kuldip Singhmitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 6 (1), District Centre Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan :Aadcm4488J) Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 16(2), District Centre Saket, New Delhi New Delhi. (Pan :Aadcm4488J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashu Goel, Ca & Shri Ashish, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2016

3. 7.16 6.1 4. 2.95 -1.3 Bang Overseas Ltd. 5. Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. -0.6 -0.63 6. 2.19 1.4 Dolphin International Ltd. 7. 3.15 2.98 Emmsons International Ltd. 8. 4.13 3.03 Essel Shyam Technologies Ltd 9. -1.18 -1.87 Euro Vistaa (India) Ltd 10. 2.55 2.53 FE (India) Ltd 11. 2.64 1.29 Frost International Ltd 12. 4.29 4.29 Gimpex Ltd Golkunde

MITSUI & CO INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

Appeals are partly allowed and

Bench: Shri S.V.Mehrotrashri Kuldip Singhmitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 6 (1), District Centre Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan :Aadcm4488J) Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No. D-1, 4Th Floor, Salcon Ras Vilas, Circle 16(2), District Centre Saket, New Delhi New Delhi. (Pan :Aadcm4488J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Ashu Goel, Ca & Shri Ashish, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2016

3. 7.16 6.1 4. 2.95 -1.3 Bang Overseas Ltd. 5. Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. -0.6 -0.63 6. 2.19 1.4 Dolphin International Ltd. 7. 3.15 2.98 Emmsons International Ltd. 8. 4.13 3.03 Essel Shyam Technologies Ltd 9. -1.18 -1.87 Euro Vistaa (India) Ltd 10. 2.55 2.53 FE (India) Ltd 11. 2.64 1.29 Frost International Ltd 12. 4.29 4.29 Gimpex Ltd Golkunde

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 145, which concerns are correct and complete account but which, in the opinion of the officer, does not disclose the true and proper income.” 35. Further at page number 53 the honourable Supreme Court further held that:- “it is not only the right but the duty of the assessing officer to consider whether or not the books disclose

NOBLE RESOURCE & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,286/- (before adjustment of brought forward loss) as against a returned loss of Rs. 34,80,86,014/-, and thereby making an adjustment of Rs. 1,09,82,272/-. Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) 1.1. That on the facts of the case

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,286/- (before adjustment of brought forward loss) as against a returned loss of Rs. 34,80,86,014/-, and thereby making an adjustment of Rs. 1,09,82,272/-. Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) 1.1. That on the facts of the case

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

68,561/- on account of Tax Deducted at Source ('TDS'), Tax Collected at Source ('TCS') and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') credit (iv) Erroneous application of surcharge at 12% vis-à-vis surcharge rate of 10% (as provided under section 115BAA of the Act); and (v) Non-computation of interest charged under sections 234A, 234B and 234C

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

3% on cost of goods purchased for exports to AE as well as to unrelated parties. We find that the above reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the deduction is not cogent. That the assessee has not made any such claim initially cannot act as estoppel against the proper and valid claim. We agree with the ld. Counsel

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

3 Provision of Marketing Support services 10782778 TNMM 4 Re-imbursement of Expenses 19067033 No 5 Recovery of expenses 721078 No bench marking 4. The Tribunal records that although the TPO did not interfere with the benchmarking in respect of transactions listed at S. No. 1, 4 and 5, it came to the conclusion that the assessee had incurred

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

3 Provision of Marketing Support services 10782778 TNMM 4 Re-imbursement of Expenses 19067033 No 5 Recovery of expenses 721078 No bench marking 4. The Tribunal records that although the TPO did not interfere with the benchmarking in respect of transactions listed at S. No. 1, 4 and 5, it came to the conclusion that the assessee had incurred