ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

transferred directly or indirectly to its members (100% share holding in the company is that of the Central Government). It filed its return under section 139(1), in time, showing income at Rs. NIL, after claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act, on the strength of the registration u/ s. 12AA granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

transferred directly or indirectly to its members (100% share holding in the company is that of the Central Government). It filed its return under section 139(1), in time, showing income at Rs. NIL, after claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act, on the strength of the registration u/ s. 12AA granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income

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

The appeal is allowed

11 of 26 (3) On the date specified in the notice under sub-section (2), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce, including any information or documents referred to in sub-section (3) of section 92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified

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

11) of the said Rule, respectively. 5. Role of the AO after Determination of ALP Under sub-section (4) of Section 92C of the Act, the AO has to compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the ALP determined by him under sub-section (3) of the same Section. Where the determination of ALP is done

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

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

11 granting exemption will not operate. One such instance is furnished by clause (c)(ii) which says that if any part of the income or any property of the trust is, during the relevant previous year, used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to any sub-section (3), the exemption will not be allowed

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

11 ,543 as against returned/ declared income of Rs.l1,01,94,540. Re: Addition under section 68 of the Act on account of share capital from non- resident holding company 4. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.134,99,99,904 under section 68 of the Act on account of share capital

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer passed\nunder sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and\n(ii) any foreign company.]\"\n15. A plain reading of Section indicates that it is obligatory on\nthe part of the AO to forward a draft Assessment Order as per\nthe provisions of Section 144C(1) of the Act. The sub-Section\n(1) of Section 144C being

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

pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making addition

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Transfer Pricing Officer is received by him.] (6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) 50[, (1A)] and (2) shall apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of 51[sub-sections (3), (5) and (5A)], be completed— (i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person

BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Transfer Pricing Officer is received by him.] (6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) 50[, (1A)] and (2) shall apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of 51[sub-sections (3), (5) and (5A)], be completed— (i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

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.]” 11

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

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.]” 11

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

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.]” 11

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

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.]” 11

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

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.]” 11

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

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.]” 11