DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

3) of section 92C, the computation of total income having regard to the arm’s length price so determined by the TPO is required to be done by the Assessing Officer under sub- section (4) of section 92C, read with sub-section (4) of section 92CA. In order to make a reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer

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

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

(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

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

transfer pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making

CLAAS AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Pricing order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act\npassed.\n21.09.2023\n:\nDraft assessment order u/s 144C of the Act\npassed.\n24.06.2024\n:\nDRP directions under Section 144C(5) of the Act\nissued.\n31.07.2024\n:\n30.09.2023\n:\nFinal Assessment order under Section 143(3)\nr.w.s144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act.\nLimitation for passing the final assessment\norder expired

BAXTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available\nstands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time\nlimit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021.\n18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O.\nunder Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13

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)

3 of the Revenue. 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

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

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 officer (‘TPO’) for determination of ALP in relation

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 officer (‘TPO’) for determination of ALP in relation

DCIT(E), CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIAN GRAMEEN SERVICES, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

price was such as to shock the conscience of the court, it was not possible to hold that the transaction was otherwise than for adequate consideration. This is a test which the rent under consideration had to meet. 4.1.9 In the case of Ram Bhawan Dharamsala v. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 258 ITR 725 (Raj.)], it has been held that

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

TRAVELPORT LP,GEORGIA USA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

3); and (ii) any foreign company. 10................................. 11. In Section 144C (15)(b) of the Act, the term “eligible assessee” is followed by an expression “means” only and there are two categories referred therein (i) any person in whose case the variation arises as a consequence of an order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and (ii) any foreign company

MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available\nstands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time\nlimit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021.\n18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O.\nunder Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalteva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Vs Assessment Unit, Income Industries India Private Limited, Tax Department/Deputy 8Th Floor, C-Wing Time Square, Commissioner Of Income Andherikurla Road, Marol Naka, Tax, Circle 25(1), Opp Mittal Industrial Estate C. R. Building, Delhi- Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059, 110001 Maharashtra, India Pan: Bnspk7225H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, Sh. Sohamdua, Adv& Sh. Abhiudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13

WIN MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the\ntime) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present\ncase, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire\non 30.09.2021.\n18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O.\nunder Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13

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