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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

pricing adjustment amounting Rs 1,07,01,24,795/- to the total income completely ignoring the amount of deduction u/s 80-IA claimed for Rs 47,78,80,266/-. b) The ld. AO while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act has considered an imaginary figure of book profits at Rs. 68,32,26,303/-, however the correct

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

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

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

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

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

rectification application filed before the Ld. AO on November 25, 2011: Quote ----------------------------- In your order, your goods elf has not provided the benefit of working capital adjustment as directed by the Dispute 6 Resolution Panel ("DRP"). In this regard, we have reproduced below the relevant extract from the DRP's directions: "...Now that data is furnished

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Ys 2020-21. ITA No. 3724/DEL/2024 A.Y 2020-21 2. Ground No. 1 is general. 3. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application dated 29.04.2025 and sought permission for withdrawal of transfer pricing grounds. The said petition reads

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Ys 2020-21. ITA No. 3724/DEL/2024 A.Y 2020-21 2. Ground No. 1 is general. 3. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application dated 29.04.2025 and sought permission for withdrawal of transfer pricing grounds. The said petition reads

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92-CA; and (ii) any foreign company.’ 7. A reference is also made to the provisions of section 144B relating to the faceless assessment pertaining to the assessment completed in case of eligible assessee u/s 144C of the Act, the relevant provisions are as under: Fresenius Kabi Oncology

DABUR INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dabur India Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 7 (1), 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaacd0474C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chandan Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (A), Kochi [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Appeal Filed Against Order Passed U/S 143(1) Is Infructuous As The Order Is Merged With The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) R.W.S 144B. 2. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant.

transfer pricing adjustment, disallowance u/s 80G, mismatch of export data and 3 mismatch of import data together of Rs.38,96,80,471/- by considering the income computed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act an determined the total taxable income of Rs.12,44,54,00,241/-. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. Addl

COMPASS INDIA SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act by the Ld. TPO\nand erroneously making an adjustment of INR 50,43,725 instead of INR 59,30,009.\nDRP Direction:\nGrounds 4.1 to 4.4 relate to adjustment of INR 50,43,725 by AO/TPO on account of\nReceipt of Services (Software license) by the assessee from its foreign

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

154. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 8. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) determined the arm's length price (“ALP") of the international, transaction of the assessee at Rs.11,16,84,294/- instead of Rs.9,83,77,700/-, thereby making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,33,07,224/- to the income. The AO upheld the adjustments carried

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

154. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 8. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) determined the arm's length price (“ALP") of the international, transaction of the assessee at Rs.11,16,84,294/- instead of Rs.9,83,77,700/-, thereby making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,33,07,224/- to the income. The AO upheld the adjustments carried

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

154. Transfer Pricing Adjustment 8. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) determined the arm's length price (“ALP") of the international, transaction of the assessee at Rs.11,16,84,294/- instead of Rs.9,83,77,700/-, thereby making an upward adjustment of Rs.1,33,07,224/- to the income. The AO upheld the adjustments carried

ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GP GLOBAL ENERGY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5695/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Acit, Gp Global Energy Pvt. Circle 10(2), Vs. Ltd., C.R. Building, New Delhi. A-1/292, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3281E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

rectification order passed u/s 154 on 30.03.2016. Assessee contended that TPO cannot disallow the aggregation of negative values when the same was allowed in the original transfer pricing

COMPASS INDIA SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act by the Ld. TPO\nand erroneously making an adjustment of INR 50,43,725 instead of INR 59,30,009.\nDRP Direction:\nGrounds 4.1 to 4.4 relate to adjustment of INR 50,43,725 by AO/TPO on account of\nReceipt of Services (Software license) by the assessee from its foreign

JCB INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

154/- has been disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee on protective basis and passed the Assessment on 05/04/2021, u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C & 144C(3), 143(3A) 143(3D) of the Income Tax Act by computing the income of the assessee as under:- Income as per return Rs. 657,50,18,810/- Add: Addition

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIOANAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

price below cost is allowed even though such loss has not been realized actually. At this stage, we need to emphasize once again that the above system of commercial accounting can be superseded or modified by legislative enactment. This is where section comes into play. Under that section, the Central Government is empowered to notify from time to time

HONDA TRADING CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI / ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

transfer pricing, by inappropriately comparing the transactions of commission paid and received by the Appellant with the AE(s). 16.4 The impugned order is bad in law, resulting in economic double taxation, as the transactions pertaining to commission received and paid are already included in the total international transaction value used to calculate the impugned adjustment for the alleged trading