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

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

transfer pricing provisions in the final assessment order is contrary to the position of law and factual matrix and thus requires to be reversed. 38. In essence, it is the case of assessee that revenue has merely alleged existence of arrangement to invoke rigours of Section 80IA(10) of the Act merely on the ground that the eligible units have

K.R.PULP AND PAPERS LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section\n80IA of the Act.\n3. That the learned AO/TPO/DRP have also erred both in law and on\nfacts in making an adjustment of Rs.32,68,31,286/- to the sale price\nof power by the eligible units (captive power plants) to non-eligible units\nby adopting average rates of power charged to industrial customers in\nUttar Pradesh by Indian

K R PULP AND PAPERS LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-19 , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section\n801A of the Act.\n3.\nThat the learned AO/TPO/DRP have also erred both in law and on\nfacts in making an adjustment of Rs.32,68,31,286/- to the sale price\nof power by the eligible units (captive power plants) to non-eligible units\nby adopting average rates of power charged to industrial customers in\nUttar Pradesh by Indian

ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LTD,IRELAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in terms indicate above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Ltd., 406, Riverwalk, Citywest Circle-1(1)(1), Business Campus, Saggart, International Dublin 24, Ireland Taxation, Pan-Aahca7203M New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Vizay B.Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Acit, Circle-International Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi Dated 24.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

transfer pricing documentation.” 10. There is no gainsaying that factually the issue stands on identical footing in relation to preceding assessment years, as, both the Assessing Officer and learned DRP have decided the issue following their earlier decisions. That being the case, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench, as referred to above, we hold that the amount received

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

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

transfer pricing officer has wrongly interpreted the functions provided by the assessee. The assessee is providing mainly the passengers and baggage is handling services as listed in section 4 of the above version. The other services provided are the informative services such as informing the airport activities concerning the specific carriers' aircraft to the concerned persons/agencies/other operators and to operate

HONDA MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD. ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustment relating to model fee paid for strips and color change : The TPO/DRP have made the aforesaid disallowance by holding that model fee paid by the assessee to its AE is nothing but in the nature of royalty which is already paid separately to the AE. It was held that the model fee appearing as a separate transaction

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

transfer pricing adjustment to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication. During the remand back proceedings, various submissions were filed before the TPO containing the contentions with respect to both service segments. A Summary of the submissions filed has been provided below for the Bench's ready reference: S.No. Date of submission Particulars 1. October 07, 2014 Application

DCIT, CIRLCE- 1(1) (1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI vs. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANKING CORP. (INDIA BRANCH), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

135,352 Singapore 10. Receipt of back office support services TNMM 6,251,594 from American Express Travel Related Services Company 11. Receipt of technical support services TNMM 333,211 from AESEL UK 5. The assessee benchmarked its international transactions on TNMM; however, the Ld. TPO applied CUP method. Objections raised by the assessee were addressed

COMPASS INDIA SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

transfer pricing. The Ld. TPO/DRP further stated that the Appellant has failed to\ndemonstrate the tangible benefit derived from such services. The Ld. TPO/DRP erred\nas under-\na) Not concurred with the Other Method analysis undertaken by Appellant in its TP\nstudy and instead proceeded to arbitrarily apply CUP method as the most appropriate\nmethod for benchmarking without providing

COMPASS INDIA SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

transfer pricing. The Ld. TPO/DRP further stated that the Appellant has failed to\ndemonstrate the tangible benefit derived from such services. The Ld. TPO/DRP erred\nas under-\na) Not concurred with the Other Method analysis undertaken by Appellant in its TP\nstudy and instead proceeded to arbitrarily apply CUP method as the most appropriate\nmethod for benchmarking without providing

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\N\Nita No. 4477/Del/2024\N[Assessment Year: 2020-21]\N\N| Genpact Services Llc,\Nplot 22A & B, Sector 18,\Nudyog Vihar,\Ngurgaon, Haryana-122002\Npan-Aaccg3353P\Nappellant\N|\Nassistant Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-International Tax-1(3)(1),\Nvs Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\N| Appellant By\Nshri Vishal Kalra, Adv.,\Nms. Reema Malik, Adv.& Ms.\Nsnigdha Gautam, Adv.\Nrespondent By\Nshri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N30.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N31.07.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The\Nassessing Officer Dated 29.07.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act') In Pursuance To The\Ndirections Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 25.06.2024 Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2020-21.\N2. The Relevant Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Indian Branch Office Of\Ngenpact Llc, A Usa Company. The Assessee Is A Service Provider\Nrendering Off-Shore Support Services Akin To Bpo Services, Including\Ncollections/Analytics Call Centre Services & Other Back-Office Support\Nservices To Its Aes. The Assessee Is Responsible For Rendering The\Ndesignated Bpo / Collections Services From Its Facility / Infrastructure In\Nindia. As For Assessment Year 2020-21, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of\Nincome (Roi') Declaring An Income Of Inr 20,57,10,540/- On 07.01.2021.\Nduring The Course Of Scrutiny, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S\N92Ca Of The Act To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo') To Determine The\Narm'S Length Price (‘Alp') In Respect Of International Transaction Entered\Ninto By The Assessee.\N2.

Transfer Pricing)-1(3)(1), Mumbai, had\nduring the course of the TP proceedings accepted the reimbursement\nof expenses to be at arm's length, therefore, as per the provisions of\nSec. 92CA(4) of the Act, the A.O was obligated to pass the order and\ncompute the total income of the assessee in conformity with the\narm's length

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

transfer as per provisions of section 2(47) of the Act. The AO disallowed the short term capital loss of Rs. 76,12,50,000 claimed by the appellant. In addition to the appellant's submissions, the AR has also submitted the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, who has allowed the short term capital loss claimed by Alona Azalea

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

135 In this decision, the Scheme of Arrangement proposed by Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. u/ss.391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 vide Company Petition No.183 of 2009 was rejected by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by accepting the stand of the Income-tax department that this has been made against public interest and with a view to evade payment

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

135 In this decision, the Scheme of Arrangement proposed by Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. u/ss.391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 vide Company Petition No.183 of 2009 was rejected by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by accepting the stand of the Income-tax department that this has been made against public interest and with a view to evade payment

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

135 In this decision, the Scheme of Arrangement proposed by Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. u/ss.391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 vide Company Petition No.183 of 2009 was rejected by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by accepting the stand of the Income-tax department that this has been made against public interest and with a view to evade payment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI vs. TVARUR AND FATS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assistant Commissioner Vs. Tvarur & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Of Income Tax, Unit No. 101, 102A, First Floor, Room No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 9, Realtech Copia, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Corporate Suits, Jasola District Extension, New Delhi Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aaect7561Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 83/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 3006/Del/2024) Tvarur & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 101, 102A, First Income Tax, Floor, Plot No. 9, Room No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Ara Realtechcopia, Corporate Centre, Jhandewalan Suits, Jasola District Extension, New Delhi Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aaect7561Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Sh. Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 92CA of the Act, referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The DCIT, TPO-3(2)(1), New Delhi passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the IT Act, on 31.10.2019 rejecting the CUP Method used by the Assessee to benchmark the international transaction and concluded at ALP Method