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

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

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 which is applied

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

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 which is applied

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAVISITE INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 M/S Navisite India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward -17(4) Vipul Plaza, 1St Floor New Delhi Golf Course Road Sector-54, Sun City Gurgaon 122 002 Pan: Aaccn0289R & A.Y. 2011-12 Ito, Ward 17(4) Vs. M/S Navisite India Pvt.Ltd. Room No.225D New Delhi C.R.Building I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh.Manoneet Dalal, Adv. Sh. Prag Garg, Adv. Sh.Yishu Goel, Adv. Sh. Jatin Chawla, Adv. Department By: Sri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr.D.R.

68,65,766 by AE ITA No.948/Del/16 A.Y. 2011-12 M/s Navisite India Pvt.Ltd. 2.3. As value of transaction exceeded Rs.15 crores, reference was made to Transfer Pricing Officer, for computing arm’s length price of international transactions undertaken by assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AE), after obtaining necessary approvals. 2.4. On receipt of reference by Ld.TPO, proceedings were taken

NAVISITE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 M/S Navisite India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward -17(4) Vipul Plaza, 1St Floor New Delhi Golf Course Road Sector-54, Sun City Gurgaon 122 002 Pan: Aaccn0289R & A.Y. 2011-12 Ito, Ward 17(4) Vs. M/S Navisite India Pvt.Ltd. Room No.225D New Delhi C.R.Building I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh.Manoneet Dalal, Adv. Sh. Prag Garg, Adv. Sh.Yishu Goel, Adv. Sh. Jatin Chawla, Adv. Department By: Sri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr.D.R.

68,65,766 by AE ITA No.948/Del/16 A.Y. 2011-12 M/s Navisite India Pvt.Ltd. 2.3. As value of transaction exceeded Rs.15 crores, reference was made to Transfer Pricing Officer, for computing arm’s length price of international transactions undertaken by assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AE), after obtaining necessary approvals. 2.4. On receipt of reference by Ld.TPO, proceedings were taken

M/S. DENSO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Denso India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit B-1/D4, Ground Floor, Circle-7(1) Mohan Cooperative Industrial New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacd4255F (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv & Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv Respondent By Sh. Surendar Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2020

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Rules; 4.3 carrying out a TP adjustment on the transaction of purchase of fixed assets, disregarding the separate benchmarking analysis carried out in the TP documentation by testing overseas entity as tested party; 4.4. incorrectly held that the appellant had applied overall TNMM and aggregating such transaction with purchase

M/S D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") and proceeded to make the transfer pricing addition based on re-determination of the arm's length price of the / international transaction. Assessment year: 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13 4.2. That the learned TPO erred, in law and on facts, in using single

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") and proceeded to make the transfer pricing addition based on re-determination of the arm's length price of the / international transaction. Assessment year: 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13 4.2. That the learned TPO erred, in law and on facts, in using single

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") and proceeded to make the transfer pricing addition based on re-determination of the arm's length price of the / international transaction. Assessment year: 2010-11, 11-12, 12-13 4.2. That the learned TPO erred, in law and on facts, in using single

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BENETTON INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

68,024/- on account of payment of royalty. 13. Additionally, the learned CIT(A) also deleted the lease registration charges amounting to ₹30,31,188/-. 14. The Revenue preferred an appeal [being ITA 457/Del/2013] impugning the deletions made by the learned CIT(A) in respect of reimbursement of expenses towards expatriate salaries, royalty, and lease rental charges. The same were

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.:

68 and 69 of the said order has noted that the assessee has not carried on any distribution functions though the agreement provided for same. The Tribunal further noted that DRP in the present case was motivated by the distribution part of the agreement which was not actually carried on by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee

SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

92D(3) of\nthe Act, the AO may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to 2%\nof the value of such transactions.\"\n\nAccordingly, Rs.4,57,61,447/- i.e. 2% of Rs.2,28,80,72,332/- should be levied as\npenalty u/s 271G of the Act.\n\n2.\nFurther, it is also noticed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBC WORLD INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

92D in respect of any person or class of persons.]” Provisions of section 2 (28C) of the Act defines the Joint Commissioner means a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Or An Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax under subsection (1) of section 117 of the income tax act. Further with retrospective effect from 01/06/1994

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. PROGRESSIVE TOOLS & COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs. Progressive Tools & Range-2, Components Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. 8/3A, Site-Iv, Indl. Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. Pan : Aachp2255L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,58,202/. The assessee’s net profit margin was determined at 4.25% as under:- Table - 2 Total sale of Automobile parts and job work of the assessee (sale plus job work i.e., 23.71+0.97) 24.68 Total expenditures on sale of automobiles parts and other heads by the assessee (Total expenditure less interest & bank charges

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

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