COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MENTOR GRAPHICS (NOIDA) PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C makes it clear that where more than one price is determined by employing the most appropriate method, the arm’s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices. There is no dispute that the prices which are to be considered while computing

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

2 having their headquarters mentioned in column 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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

10 of 32 period of the lease, the lessee was bound to restore it to the lessor. The Revenue had failed to prove that there was in fact a sale of plant and machinery. There was nothing in the lease deed to show to the contrary. On the other hand the lessee was prohibited from assigning any right

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

10 of 32 period of the lease, the lessee was bound to restore it to the lessor. The Revenue had failed to prove that there was in fact a sale of plant and machinery. There was nothing in the lease deed to show to the contrary. On the other hand the lessee was prohibited from assigning any right

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

section 55(2)(1), cost inflation index was to be applied with effect from 1-4-1981 instead of the year of acquisition by the assessee. 46. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sushil Kumar: 231 Taxman 788 held that where capital asset was property of HUF prior to 1.4.1981 and assessee acquired absolute ownership

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law." 85. The OECD Transfer Pricing

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law." 85. The OECD Transfer Pricing

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)

price on date of transfer. Special auditor reported that during year under consideration unit has transferred work in progress and for working out value of such transfer, unit has followed same methodology as followed for valuation of its closing work in progress. Therefore, he held that unit has transferred goods in form of work in progress to eligible unit below

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

section 56(2)(viib). It is evidenced, during the appellate proceedings, by the\nfact that M/s. Otter Ltd has immediately sold certain no of shares to an India\nbased Indian resident entity. M/s. Link Investment Trust. It is clearly evident\nthat if M/s. Link Investment Trust had bought the shares of the appellant-\ncompany at such a huge premium

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

2 I.T.A. No.2313/Del/2022 pricing adjustment of Rs. 21,92,40,676/- in relation to the specified domestic transactions undertaken by the appellant. 3.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in adding the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO to the income of the appellant not appreciating that the addition / disallowance ought to have been restricted

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

transfer of the capital asset. The court considered the provisions of sections 23(1), 23(1-A) and section 23(2) of the Act as well as section 28 and section 34 of the Act of 1894 and observed that section 23(1- A) was introduced in the 1894 Act to mitigate the hardship caused to the owner

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

transfer the consideration for which is determined or approved by the Central Government, or the Reserve Bank of India is exempt from tax. Thus, in the case of an individual or HUF, such capital gain arising from compulsory acquisition of agricultural land being capital asset is exempt from tax u/s 10(37) of the Act. 7. It is submitted that

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 on date of transfer. Special auditor reported that during year under consideration unit has transferred work in progress and for working out value of such transfer, unit has followed same methodology as followed for valuation of its closing work in progress. Therefore, he held that unit has transferred goods in form of work in progress to eligible unit below

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

2,23,96,778 on account of provision and receipt of freight forwarding services made by the AO/Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") to the transfer price of the international transaction of the Appellant, alleging the same to be not at arm's length in terms of the provisions the Act. 5. That on facts and circumstances of the case

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR MAHASANG HARYANA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH/FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

2,23,96,778 on account of provision and receipt of freight forwarding services made by the AO/Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") to the transfer price of the international transaction of the Appellant, alleging the same to be not at arm's length in terms of the provisions the Act. 5. That on facts and circumstances of the case

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)

2. That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (Transfer Pricing Officer) /Ld.DRP have erred in law in rejecting the transfer pricing methodology adopted by the appellant and adopting a different mthod for computing arm’s length price of international transactions entered into by the appellant. 3. That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (Transfer Pricing Officer) /Ld.DRP have erred

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

pricing, data analytics, management or any other technical matter under this Act or an agreement entered into under section 90 or 90A, which may be required in a particular case or a class of cases, under this section and the term "technical unit", wherever used in this section, shall refer to an Assessing Officer having powers so assigned

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

10. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP has erred in law in not entirely deleting the proposed erroneous additions amounting to Rs. 4,68,86,17,357/- while framing order u/s 144C(5) of the Act.\n11. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case