ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has been challenged. All these appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience, they are being disposed of through this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, the Ld. CIT DR submitted that the department’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 and bearing ITA No. 567/Kol/2015 was delayed in filing by a period

M/S. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL AB (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

delay is condoned. 4. The first major issue raised by the assessee in his appeal is against the addition of Rs.6,23,15,808/- made by the AO on account of transfer pricing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL AB, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

delay is condoned. 4. The first major issue raised by the assessee in his appeal is against the addition of Rs.6,23,15,808/- made by the AO on account of transfer pricing

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42 \nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission of additional\nevidences

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

transfer pricing mechanism. Such opportunity cannot be taken away by treating it as purely procedural in nature.‖ Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Andrew Telecommunications P. Ltd.: ―5. Since the appeal raises a question relating to section 144C of the Income-tax Act, a brief overview of this provision is necessary. Section 144C lays down a scheme for reference

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

transfer pricing mechanism. Such opportunity cannot be taken away by treating it as purely procedural in nature.‖ Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Andrew Telecommunications P. Ltd.: ―5. Since the appeal raises a question relating to section 144C of the Income-tax Act, a brief overview of this provision is necessary. Section 144C lays down a scheme for reference

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

transfer pricing mechanism. Such opportunity cannot be taken away by treating it as purely procedural in nature.‖ Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Andrew Telecommunications P. Ltd.: ―5. Since the appeal raises a question relating to section 144C of the Income-tax Act, a brief overview of this provision is necessary. Section 144C lays down a scheme for reference

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

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

delay itself. In view of these discussions, in our considered view, the condonation petition does not deserve to be accepted. We reject the same. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. Having held so, we may also add that even on merits grievance of the Assessing Officer is that “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

YKK INDIA (P) LTD vs. ACIT CICLE-18 (1),

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

delay itself. In view of these discussions, in our considered view, the condonation petition does not deserve to be accepted. We reject the same. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. Having held so, we may also add that even on merits grievance of the Assessing Officer is that “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

NT BACK OFFICE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 18(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3890/Del/2017 stands dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-06 (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 418 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 016 New Delhi Pan: Aaccg2046N & Ay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle – 18(2) (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 212 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaccg2046N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment proposed by Ld.TPO vide order dated 20.01.2014. The taxable income was thus computed by Ld.AO at Rs.20,65,34,305/-. 2.3. Before Sec.263 proceedings started, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) against order passed by Ld.A.O. dated 30.03.2014 u/s 143(3) challenging additions made therein. Since, by then, Ld.Pr.CIT issued show-cause notice to assessee

NT BACK OFFICE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3890/Del/2017 stands dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-06 (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 418 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 016 New Delhi Pan: Aaccg2046N & Ay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle – 18(2) (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 212 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaccg2046N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment proposed by Ld.TPO vide order dated 20.01.2014. The taxable income was thus computed by Ld.AO at Rs.20,65,34,305/-. 2.3. Before Sec.263 proceedings started, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) against order passed by Ld.A.O. dated 30.03.2014 u/s 143(3) challenging additions made therein. Since, by then, Ld.Pr.CIT issued show-cause notice to assessee

BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT,SPECIAL RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the delayed realization of invoices from AEs has been upheld. The ld. DR contended that the order in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has been passed without considering the amendment to section 92B carried out by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002, 19 ITA No.7234/Del./2017 which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. ARIBA INC.

condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals. 3. According to the appellant/revenue, there is delay of 54 days in filing and 154 days in re-filing the appeals. 4. Issue notice to the respondent/assessee via all modes, including e- mail. 5. List the above-captioned applications on 16.01.2024. ITA 732/2023 ITA 733/2023 ITA 734/2023 ITA 735/2023

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. ARIBA INC.

condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals. 3. According to the appellant/revenue, there is delay of 54 days in filing and 154 days in re-filing the appeals. 4. Issue notice to the respondent/assessee via all modes, including e- mail. 5. List the above-captioned applications on 16.01.2024. ITA 732/2023 ITA 733/2023 ITA 734/2023 ITA 735/2023

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. ARIBA INC.,

condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals. 3. According to the appellant/revenue, there is delay of 54 days in filing and 154 days in re-filing the appeals. 4. Issue notice to the respondent/assessee via all modes, including e- mail. 5. List the above-captioned applications on 16.01.2024. ITA 732/2023 ITA 733/2023 ITA 734/2023 ITA 735/2023