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

price of the land to APIL and simultaneously obtained possession of the plots. It would appear that one of the conditions of the agreement was that in case the allotment of plots is cancelled later, the assessee will be liable for 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 3 of 40 cancellation charges of 10% of the cost

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

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

The appeal is allowed

section 92C on the basis of such material or informaction or document available with him. After the Transfer Pricing Officer determines the arm’s length price, it is incumbent upon him to send a copy of the order to the assessing officer and to the assessee. In the present case what has happened is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

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)

price on date of transfer. Special auditor reported that during year under consideration unit has transferred work in progress and for working out value of such transfer, unit has followed same methodology as followed for valuation of its closing work in progress. Therefore, he held that unit has transferred goods in form of work in progress to eligible unit below

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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 (1) of the Act and referred the case to the transfer pricing

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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 (1) of the Act and referred the case to the transfer pricing

JAN KALYAN SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

transferable in the manner provided by its articles, and are not of the nature of real estate." The aforesaid principles of respecting the distinct corporate identity was 12 reiterated by the Supreme Court in the decision of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. UOI reported in 341 ITR 1, wherein the Court held that companies and other entities are viewed

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

price on date of transfer. Special auditor reported that during year under consideration unit has transferred work in progress and for working out value of such transfer, unit has followed same methodology as followed for valuation of its closing work in progress. Therefore, he held that unit has transferred goods in form of work in progress to eligible unit below

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92-CA; and (ii) any foreign company.’ 7. A reference is also made to the provisions of section 144B relating to the faceless assessment pertaining to the assessment completed in case of eligible assessee u/s 144C of the Act, the relevant provisions are as under: Fresenius Kabi Oncology

ROLLS-ROYCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT TP 3(2)(1), DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon'ble DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 21 September 2021 beyond the time limit prescribed and thereby making the entire assessment as vold-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. Transfer Pricing

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

13) r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act dated 31st October, 2017 inter alia continued with the transfer pricing adjustments

ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92-CA; and (ii) any foreign company.’ 9. A reference is also made to the provisions of section 144B relating to the faceless assessment pertaining to the assessment completed in case of eligible assessee u/s 144C of the Act, which are as under: Ariba India Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT “144B.Faceless Assessment

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

13. In all these cases, it has found that the transactions have been found to be at Arm's Length by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the Transfer pricing order of the AE ie. Adobe India. This is not disputed by the Revenue. In such a situation, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as above applies

L.S CABLE INDIA PVT LTD ,REWARI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] L S Cable India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.28-31, Sector-5, Cirlce-13(1), Phase-Ii, Hsiidc Gc Bawal, New Delhi Rewari, Haryana-23501. Pan-Aabcl3621Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri S.K.Jhadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2025

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92-CA; and (ii) any foreign company.’ 13. From the perusal

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.

Section 144B(5) of the Act. Thus, the assessment proceedings are vitiated in law and liable to be quashed. Grounds against addition proposed in relation to transfer of specified asset 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order is bad in law as the adjustment made in relation to transfer of specified

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

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily determined arm's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") Method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ("the Rules"), thereby resulting in an adjustment of INR 42,784,366. 10. That

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

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily determined arm's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") Method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ("the Rules"), thereby resulting in an adjustment of INR 42,784,366. 10. That

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