TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

127. We agree and accept the position in the portion reproduced above in bold and italics. The object and purpose of Transfer Pricing adjustment is to ensure that the controlled taxpayers are given tax parity with uncontrolled taxpayers by determining their true taxable income. There should be adequate and proper compensation for the functions performed including AMP expenses. Thus

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEWBURY HOLDING TWO 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

127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the\nassessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to\nbe quashed.\n3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case,\nthe proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section\n153C are bad in law and against the statutory\nprovisions.\n3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaaptive Components India P. Ltd, Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Delphi Of Income-Tax, Automotive Systems P. Ltd), Circle-7(1), P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacd0226E

section 92B(1) and 92B(2) of the Act. The logical conclusion then would be that the said comparable would become automatically outside the scope of comparability per se. Hence, even as per the Rule i.e. 10B(2) the said comparable company Aptiv Components India P. Ltd cannot be treated as comparable with the assessee and deserves to be excluded

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing, rule is to benchmark transactions by transactions. Only if the transactions are closely linked, then the same can be aggregated, but aggregation is more of exception, than a rule. If the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson has held that AMP is the separate international transaction specially in the case of distribution companies

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing, rule is to benchmark transactions by transactions. Only if the transactions are closely linked, then the same can be aggregated, but aggregation is more of exception, than a rule. If the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson has held that AMP is the separate international transaction specially in the case of distribution companies

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

127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

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

127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

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

127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

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

127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

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

127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

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

127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3.(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated by learned A.O. under Section 153C are bad in law and against the statutory provisions. 3.(ii) That without prejudice to the above

PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Panalpine World Vs. Addl. Cit, Transport India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-7, 5Th Floor, Orchid Business New Delhi Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Panalpine World Special Range-7, Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Plot No. 227/2, Dhulsiras, Dwarka, Sector-24, New Delhi Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Pricing -II(2), Mumbai ("TPO"). 2. 29.05.2014 Final assessment order was passed by the DCIT -10(1), Mumbai ("Assessing Officer") under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). 3. --- Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and TPO of Panalpina World Transport (I) Pvt. Ltd. was transferred from Mumbai Officer/s to Delhi Officer/s

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (I) P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Panalpine World Vs. Addl. Cit, Transport India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-7, 5Th Floor, Orchid Business New Delhi Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Panalpine World Special Range-7, Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Plot No. 227/2, Dhulsiras, Dwarka, Sector-24, New Delhi Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Pricing -II(2), Mumbai ("TPO"). 2. 29.05.2014 Final assessment order was passed by the DCIT -10(1), Mumbai ("Assessing Officer") under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). 3. --- Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and TPO of Panalpina World Transport (I) Pvt. Ltd. was transferred from Mumbai Officer/s to Delhi Officer/s

GLOBE GROUND INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 92CA(1). Vide order dated 09.01.2013 the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed an addition of Rs.8,37,93,883 and AO vide his draft assessment order dated 08.03.2013 after considering the above International transaction, proposed to assess the taxpayer at an income of Rs.13,72,42,420. 4. The taxpayer company (GGIPL) is a subsidiary of Globe Ground Deutschland

HEMKUNT FOUNDATIONS,GURUGRAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) -1, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 & Stay Application No.329Del/2024 ( In Ita No. 631/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2021-22 Hemkunt Foundations, Vs. Principal Commissioner Plot No.809, Second Floor, Income Tax, Rd 42, Sector 42, Central-1, Gurugram, Haryana New Delhi Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaath8443C (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer u/s 127. This position has been confirmed by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Kashiram Aggarwala Vs UOI ((1965) 56 ITR 14 (SC). [ Attached @ S. No 3 in Revenue's Judgement PB II] D (iv) It is well-settled that non-mentioning of correct section number, or quoting wrong section number in an Order does not invalidate