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

(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

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

3) of the Act. The 5 I.T.A. No.2313/Del/2022 case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in terms of S. 92BA r.w.s 80IA(8) & 80IA(10) of the Act for computing Arms’ Length Price in respect of Specified Domestic Transactions (SDTs) towards purchase and sale of goods & services, entered into between the units eligible for deduction under 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

3) and 144-C (1) of the Act. The total income was proposed at Rs.16,38,06,61,370. 10. Aggrieved by the aforementioned draft assessment order, the Assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) under Section 144-C (2) of the Act. By its order dated 23rd September 2011, the DRP upheld the addition made

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

3) and 144-C (1) of the Act. The total income was proposed at Rs.16,38,06,61,370. 10. Aggrieved by the aforementioned draft assessment order, the Assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) under Section 144-C (2) of the Act. By its order dated 23rd September 2011, the DRP upheld the addition made

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) …….…. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "Transfer Pricing Officer" means a Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Board to perform all or any of the functions of an Assessing Officer specified in sections 92C and 92D in respect of any person or class of persons. 9. Sub-section (3

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)

3 of the Revenue. 11. Ground No. 4 of the Revenue is in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB/IC by applying provisions of Section 80IB/IC by applying provisions of Section 80IA(8) in respect of transfer of goods (Katha & Supari) from Noida division to eligible undertaking. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 07/10/2020 in assessee

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

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily determined arm's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") Method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ("the Rules"), thereby resulting in an adjustment of INR 42,784,366. 10. That

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

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily determined arm's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") Method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ("the Rules"), thereby resulting in an adjustment of INR 42,784,366. 10. That

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub–section (3) of section 92CA; and(ii) any foreign company.]”10.A reading of the aforesaid

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V vs. NAGESH KNITWEARS P. LTD.

price of such goods ; (e) "indirect costs" means costs, not being direct costs, allocated in the ratio of the export turnover in respect of trading goods to the total turnover ; (f) "trading goods" means goods which are not manufactured or processed by the assessee. xxx Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section,-- (baa) "profits of the business" means

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment. 98. This decision in our view will not apply w.r.t. the applicability of S. 14A as the applicability or inapplicability of S 14A has to be considered at the stage of making computation of income u/s 44. We also do not agree with submission of learned DR since the only activity in shareholders a/c is of investment

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

transfer pricing adjustment. 98. This decision in our view will not apply w.r.t. the applicability of S. 14A as the applicability or inapplicability of S 14A has to be considered at the stage of making computation of income u/s 44. We also do not agree with submission of learned DR since the only activity in shareholders a/c is of investment

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

transfer pricing adjustment. 98. This decision in our view will not apply w.r.t. the applicability of S. 14A as the applicability or inapplicability of S 14A has to be considered at the stage of making computation of income u/s 44. We also do not agree with submission of learned DR since the only activity in shareholders a/c is of investment

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)

10. That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer/Ld.DRP have erred in determining Arm’s length price by reference to comparables without proper justification.. 11. That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (Transfer Pricing Officer) /Ld.DRP have erred in law and in facts and circumstances of the present assessee in disregarding use of multiple year financial data as used

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.

10. ………. it is crystal clear that, a direction was given to the AO for following proper procedure while deciding the issue relating to transfer pricing adjustment denovo. It is not in dispute that for the international transactions a procedure for computation of arms length price has been prescribed in Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“Act”) for ascertaining arm’s length price (“ALP”) of the above transactions. The Ld. TPO vide order dated 18.10.2016 has proposed to make the following adjustments :- S. No. Type of International Transaction Total Value of Transaction (Rs.) 1. Intra Group Service - Employee 34,11,787 Secondment