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 Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) read with section 144B

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 Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) read with section 144B

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42 \nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission of additional\nevidences

SWATCH GROUP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), C.R. BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22] Swatch Group (India) Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, 4Th Floor, Rectangle-I, Plot No. D- Vs Circle 22(2), 4, Saket District Centre, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi, New Delhi-110017. 110002. Pan- Aafcs7516R Assessee Revenue

section 144B of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed to the extent it confirms the additions/ disallowances made in the assessment order. 2. That the Ld. AO/Learned Transfer Pricing

UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INOCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GURGAON

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

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

price of international transactions. Further, the TPO as defined in explanation to section 92CA to be the person authorized by board to perform functions of AO specified in section 92C. In sub-section 3 of section 144B, roles of Technical unit is clearly spelt out according to which, functions of technical unit includes assistance or advice on transfer

LUXOTTICA INDIA EYEWEAR PRIVATE LTD. ,HARYANA vs. CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 793/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Vs. Dcit Ltd. Circle 13(1), 7Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan : Aabcl3871C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1061 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and DRP direction dated 19th, 2022. 2. The facts in brief the assessee company was incorporated on 15.09.2007 and engaged in the business of trading of frames and sunglasses. The assessee company is closely held company with the majority of the shares held by Luxottica

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

section 144B(2) of the Act read with order dated 06.09.2021 bearing F. No. 187/3/2020-ITA-l issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 3. That the assumption of jurisdiction by the NFAC is an incurable defect, thus, rendering the impugned order bad in law. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC erred in computing

COMPAREX INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO') dated 22 July 2022, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Sec 92CA(4) read with 144C(10) and 144C(13) of the Act. The Final assessment order thus deserves to be quashed. 6 18. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer (Technical Unit) has erred in referring the case

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

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. 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

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

144B of the Income tax Act, 1961, (Act for short). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A. No. 346/DEL/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) 1. That the impugned order of assessment framed by the assessing officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRP’) under Section 143(3) read with Section

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

144B of the Income tax Act, 1961, (Act for short). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A. No. 346/DEL/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) 1. That the impugned order of assessment framed by the assessing officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRP’) under Section 143(3) read with Section

FIBERHOME INDIA (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22

Transfer Pricing Issues. 3.6 Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. DRP, challenging the additions proposed by the Ld. AO in the draft assessment order. The Ld. DRP framed directions under Section 144C of the Act vide order dated 30.09.2024. 3.7 Consequent to the Directions of the Ld. DRP under Section 144C

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

144B", "Section 92C", "Section 92D", "Rule 10B", "Rule 10D", "Section 43B", "Section 270A" ], "issues": "The core issue revolves around the transfer pricing