ARIBA INC.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

Price Waterhouse Coopers, International Taxation, Sucheta Bhawan, 11A, Circle 1 (1), Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACD5883D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate Shri Yash Varmani, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR 2 ITA Nos.4582 to 4584, 6090/Del./2010 ITA No.3923/Del./2012 ITA No.1538/Del./2013 ITA Nos.1469 & 1470/Del./2015 Date of Hearing

ARIBA INC.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

Price Waterhouse Coopers, International Taxation, Sucheta Bhawan, 11A, Circle 1 (1), Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACD5883D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate Shri Yash Varmani, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR 2 ITA Nos.4582 to 4584, 6090/Del./2010 ITA No.3923/Del./2012 ITA No.1538/Del./2013 ITA Nos.1469 & 1470/Del./2015 Date of Hearing

M/S. ARIBA INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

Price Waterhouse Coopers, International Taxation, Sucheta Bhawan, 11A, Circle 1 (1), Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACD5883D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate Shri Yash Varmani, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR 2 ITA Nos.4582 to 4584, 6090/Del./2010 ITA No.3923/Del./2012 ITA No.1538/Del./2013 ITA Nos.1469 & 1470/Del./2015 Date of Hearing

M/S. ARIBA INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

Price Waterhouse Coopers, International Taxation, Sucheta Bhawan, 11A, Circle 1 (1), Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACD5883D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate Shri Yash Varmani, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR 2 ITA Nos.4582 to 4584, 6090/Del./2010 ITA No.3923/Del./2012 ITA No.1538/Del./2013 ITA Nos.1469 & 1470/Del./2015 Date of Hearing

ARIBA INC,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (INTL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

Price Waterhouse Coopers, International Taxation, Sucheta Bhawan, 11A, Circle 1 (1), Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACD5883D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate Shri Yash Varmani, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR 2 ITA Nos.4582 to 4584, 6090/Del./2010 ITA No.3923/Del./2012 ITA No.1538/Del./2013 ITA Nos.1469 & 1470/Del./2015 Date of Hearing

ARIBA INC,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (INTL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

Price Waterhouse Coopers, International Taxation, Sucheta Bhawan, 11A, Circle 1 (1), Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACD5883D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate Shri Yash Varmani, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR 2 ITA Nos.4582 to 4584, 6090/Del./2010 ITA No.3923/Del./2012 ITA No.1538/Del./2013 ITA Nos.1469 & 1470/Del./2015 Date of Hearing

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

115A of the Act. Therefore, we direct the AO/TPO to delete the adjustment or attributions applied. In the result, grounds raised in this regard are allowed. 52. With regard to Ground No.7 regarding penalty proceedings under section 271AA of the Act, ld. AR submitted that in the transfer pricing

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

115A of the Act which specifically refers to cases where royalties are paid to non—resident for the transfer of all or any right (including the granting of the license) in respect of any computer software to a person resident in India. 2013:DHC:6018 ======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 22 of 174 4.8.4 A copy of software supplied by the appellant

SAMSUNG C & T CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15

Transfer Pricing adjustment be crried out in respect of the transactions with M/s. Samsung C & T India P Ltd. and M/s. Samsung C & T Corporation India P. Ltd. 5. In response to the show-cause-notice, the assessee furnished its reply with supporting details. Further, in course of revisionary proceedings, learned CIT issued couple more notices seeking further clarifications/details from

NETAPP B.V.,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmanetapp B. V. Vs. Dcit C/O. Mr. Krishna Kumar (International Taxation), Gv, Srbc & Associates Circle - 2(2)(2), Llp, 4Th Floor, A-Wing, New Delhi Divyasree Chambers, #11, O’’Shaughnessy Road, Langford Gardens, Bangaluru, Karnataka-560 025

price for international transaction with AE, reference was made to TPO. The transactions between the AE and the assessee were examined by the TPO but no adverse inference was drawn by TPO. AO thereafter in the draft assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/144C dated 30.12.2017 proposed the total taxable income at Rs.5,23,15,00,092/-. Aggrieved

ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI vs. SABRE DECISION TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL LLC, USA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

115A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 20. The ratio of the of ld. CIT(A) while reducing tax rate of 40% to 10% is as under: “4.3 Now the two fundamental questions remain to be addressed. 1. Whether the income of the assessee is in the nature of royalty under section 9(l)(vi) of the Act? 2. Whether

SABRE DECISION TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

115A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 20. The ratio of the of ld. CIT(A) while reducing tax rate of 40% to 10% is as under: “4.3 Now the two fundamental questions remain to be addressed. 1. Whether the income of the assessee is in the nature of royalty under section 9(l)(vi) of the Act? 2. Whether

ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES GROUP ,ETHIOPIA vs. ACIT, INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-1(2)(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

115A of the Income-tax Act. On merit, assessee's grounds are basically two-fold. First, the contract agreement dated 15 May 2017 is between Flight Simulation Techniques Centre Pvt. Ltd, UAE (henceforth" FSTC, UAE") an affiliate of FSTI and the EA and not between FSTI and EA for providing training of pilots as the Bole International Airport, Adias Ababa

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI vs. S.A.CHITRA VENTURES LTD, GURUGRAM

In the result, both the cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

115A of the Act. 11. On these undisputed facts, all that has to be decided is as to whether the Assessing Officer was justified in passing a draft assessment order when there is no variation in income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. 12. Section 144C(1) of the Act provides that : “The Assessing

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI vs. S.A.CHITRA VENTURES LTD, GURUGRAM

In the result, both the cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

115A of the Act. 11. On these undisputed facts, all that has to be decided is as to whether the Assessing Officer was justified in passing a draft assessment order when there is no variation in income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. 12. Section 144C(1) of the Act provides that : “The Assessing

LITTLE FAIRY LIMITED,NICOSIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

115A of the Act. 11. On these undisputed facts, all that has to be decided is as to whether the Assessing Officer was justified in passing a draft assessment order when there is no variation in income 8 I.T.A. Nos. 1511 & 1512/Del/2022 or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. 12. Section 144C

LITTLE FAIRY LTD,NICOSIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

115A of the Act. 11. On these undisputed facts, all that has to be decided is as to whether the Assessing Officer was justified in passing a draft assessment order when there is no variation in income 8 I.T.A. Nos. 1511 & 1512/Del/2022 or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. 12. Section 144C

ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES GROUP,EHIOPIA vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-1(2)(2), DELHI

Transfer Pricing Officer that these payments were\nreimbursement in the hands of the assessee and the reimbursement\nwas accepted as such at arm's length. Once the character of the\npayment is found to be in the nature of reimbursement of the\nexpenses, it cannot be income chargeable to tax.\n10. Pertinently, the Revenue itself has given the benefit