DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer” occurring in Section 92CA of the Act signified that discretion was vested in the Assessing Officer and it would not be mandatory in every single case that he must refer the issue of computation of the Arm’s Length Price to the TPO3. 15 Meneta Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. 6. However, the following expressions employed in Instruction

(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 (1) shall be applied to determine

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

15)(iv)(h) of the Act is applicable and Section 10(38) of the Act is not applicable, made the distinction and made the addition avoiding Section 10 of the Act. 16. In this context here it can be observed that „Profits and gains of business‟ is one of the classified heads of the income as per Section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

15)(iv)(h) of the Act is applicable and Section 10(38) of the Act is not applicable, made the distinction and made the addition avoiding Section 10 of the Act. 16. In this context here it can be observed that ‘Profits and gains of business’ is one of the classified heads of the income as per Section

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

15)(iv)(h) of the Act is applicable and Section 10(38) of the Act is not applicable, made the distinction and made the addition avoiding Section 10 of the Act. 16. In this context here it can be observed that ‘Profits and gains of business’ is one of the classified heads of the income as per Section

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

transfer pricing provisions. The meaning assigned to ‘international transaction’ in terms of Clause (iv) of Section 92B was inclusive and not limited to the types of transactions in sub-clauses A to C and E of Clause (i). The bright line test was a way of finding out the cost and value of the international transaction, which was the first

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

transfer pricing provisions. The meaning assigned to ‘international transaction’ in terms of Clause (iv) of Section 92B was inclusive and not limited to the types of transactions in sub-clauses A to C and E of Clause (i). The bright line test was a way of finding out the cost and value of the international transaction, which was the first

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

15 of the appeal is with respect to the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of benchmarking of interest received on foreign currency loan and the learned transfer pricing officer has made an upward adjustment of Rs. 78,019,356/-. This issue is identical to the issue decided by the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for earlier years

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

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

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Takata India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 25(1), (Now Joyson Anand Abhishek New Delhi Safety Systems Pvt Ltd.,) Plot No.20, Sector-5, Imt Manesar, Gurugram (Haryana)-122050 Pan/Gir No. Aacct 7200 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

section 92C(2) of the Act.” 8. Ground No.1,2 & 3 are related to the applicability of most appropriate method vis-à-vis computation of Arm’s Length Price(ALP) of international transaction. . ITA No.6835/Del2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 7 of 9 9. It is the contention of the assessee that for bench marking the international transaction, the assessee

TRAVELPORT LP,GEORGIA USA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

15) For the purpose of this section,–(a) ........(b) “eligible assessee” means,– (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub–section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub–section (3) of section 92CA; and(ii) any foreign company.]”10

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

15 I.T.A. No.2313/Del/2022 relied upon have also been perused carefully. The contentions on admission of additional evidences filed with reference to Rule 29 of Income Tax (appellate) Tribunal Rules 1963 argued in length, has been simultaneously examined. 24. The adjustment made by the AO under Section 92BA r.w. Section 92CA r.w. Section 80IA(10) is in question which

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.

10. Section 92CA(1) of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to make reference to TPO for the computation of arm's length price of international transactions. Further, the TPO as defined in explanation to section 92CA to be the person authorized by board to perform functions of AO specified in section 92C. In sub-section 3 of section 144B

ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

Sections 44BB, 44BBA etc.). Under the impugned riding delivered by the AAR, remuneration to MSAS was justified by a transfer pricing analysis and, therefore, no further income could be attributed to the PE (MSAS). In other words, the said ruling equates an arm's length analysis (ALA) with attribution of profits. It holds that once a transfer pricing analysis

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

15 Appeal Centre (NFAC), Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACT3770D Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv Ms. Tanya, Adv Ms. Shivani, Adv Revenue by: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, AM 1. Assessee M/s. Tupperware Aker Powergas

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

15 Appeal Centre (NFAC), Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACT3770D Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv Ms. Tanya, Adv Ms. Shivani, Adv Revenue by: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, AM 1. Assessee M/s. Tupperware Aker Powergas

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

price, which are, further transferred to eligible units at actual cost comprising of procurement cost, processing cost, freight expenses on FIFO [ 1st in 1st out] basis. Therefore, it was stated that assessee has transferred goods at total cost comprising all these cost components. Merely because silver for is also sold by appellant to third-party customers at a price higher

DCIT, NOIDA vs. M/S. L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., GREATER NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee