MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

Pricing - ED071553767IN 12.04.2022 2(2)(2), Delhi 4. Further, it is informed that the above said direction was not sent through e mail. SAURABH SHARMA DCIT(DRP-2), Delhi (Sec)” 8. Based on this it was argued by the ld AR that when the ld DRP‟s directions got uploaded in ITBA portal way back on 07.04.2022 itself

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

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

127/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) considered the submissions of the assessee and deleted the above addition by considering the detailed submissions of the assessee by observing as under :- “4.1.11 I have considered facts of the case as well as written submission of the appellant

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

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

127/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) considered the submissions of the assessee and deleted the above addition by considering the detailed submissions of the assessee by observing as under :- “4.1.11 I have considered facts of the case as well as written submission of the appellant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

transfer pricing provisions were not at all applicable in the relevant assessment year in so far as the appellant had undertaken transactions only with domestic entities. Thus, there was no requirement for the appellant to file Form 3CEB and the PCIT has erroneously drawn adverse inference in this regard without even verifying basic facts

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

transfer pricing provisions were not at all applicable in the relevant assessment year in so far as the appellant had undertaken transactions only with domestic entities. Thus, there was no requirement for the appellant to file Form 3CEB and the PCIT has erroneously drawn adverse inference in this regard without even verifying basic facts