(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances? 4. If answer to question Nos.2 and 3 is in favour

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

The appeal is allowed

6 of 26 international transaction for which the arm’s length price is to be determined. 7. Upon the filing of the return by the respondent/assessee, the assessing officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA of the said Act for determination of the arm’s length price. At this juncture it would be relevant

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

6. MSIL filed its return of income for the AY 2005-06 on 31st October 2005, declaring an income of Rs. 13,46,51,71,140/-. Its case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 92CA

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

6. MSIL filed its return of income for the AY 2005-06 on 31st October 2005, declaring an income of Rs. 13,46,51,71,140/-. Its case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 92CA

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)

6 of 9 adjustment for less capacity utilization, as claimed by the appellant.. 6.That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (Transfer Pricing Officer) ld.DRP have erred in adopting a different basis as compared to previous years, without providing any justification. 7. That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (Transfer Pricing Officer) /Ld.DRP have erred in law and in facts

MUFG BANK,LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 133(6) of the Act to enable the Assessee I.T.A. No.1065/Del/2022 11 to place its response and defend its stance on application of MAM. It was thus submitted that ITAT, in first round, has not adjudicated the application of CUP as MAM to benchmark the impugned transactions. 11. We have heard the rival submission on the transfer pricing

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under section 92CA(3) on 22-02-2006 wherein he determined an adjustment of Rs.2,23,96,778/- to be made to the value of international transactions entered into by the assessee. Hence, a sum of Rs.2,23,96,778/- is reduced from the loss shown by the assessee. 5. The assessee has claimed

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under section 92CA(3) on 22-02-2006 wherein he determined an adjustment of Rs.2,23,96,778/- to be made to the value of international transactions entered into by the assessee. Hence, a sum of Rs.2,23,96,778/- is reduced from the loss shown by the assessee. 5. The assessee has claimed

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)

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’s own case (supra

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.

11 3. During current Assessment Year 2018-19 major portion of acquisition relating to business outside of India was transferred to Automated Logic Corporation (‘ALC’) pursuant to agreement dated 25.01.2018. 4. Transfer pricing study undertaken by the Appellant is placed at page 29 of paper book. Summary details of international transaction benchmarked can be seen at page 36 of paper

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

section 92F of the Act between Appellant and its AE for brand promotion or for establishing a marketing intangible, the Ld. TPO had no jurisdiction to propose an adjustment on account of AMP expenses; 5.7. not providing any reason/documentary evidence to demonstrate that the AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant constitute an international transaction; and 5.8 not appreciating that

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

section 92F of the Act between Appellant and its AE for brand promotion or for establishing a marketing intangible, the Ld. TPO had no jurisdiction to propose an adjustment on account of AMP expenses; 5.7. not providing any reason/documentary evidence to demonstrate that the AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant constitute an international transaction; and 5.8 not appreciating that

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) by the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the transaction entered by the assessee with Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (“Adobe India”) has always been accepted at Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) by the preceding TPO(s). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the Ld. AO issued show cause notice

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

11 of 18 (4) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 153 or section 153B, pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,— (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall

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

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

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

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent