COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

144C of the said Act. 3. The Transfer Pricing Officer had observed that the assessee had incurred more than the normal sales and marketing expenses to build the “Amadeus” brand in India which was owned by Amadeus Spain. According to the Transfer 2011:DHC:6027-DB ITA 938/11 Page 3 of 20 Pricing Officer, the assessee should have been reimbursed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBC WORLD INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

144C(5) of the Act did not allow reasonable opportunity to the Appellant to fight the case on merits. The directions of the DRP are erroneous and perverse on facts. Transfer Pricing ("TP") Adjustment - INR 2,20,48,880 2. The addition of INR 2,20,48,880 recommended by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO") and incorporated

XANDER ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub- section(3) of section 92CA of the Act. 11. Thus, if, we apply the provisions of section 144C of the Act to the facts of the present appeal, undoubtedly, assessee qualifies as an eligible assessee under sub-section (15)(b)(i) of section 144C of the Act. Further, it is an established fact

XANDER ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub- section(3) of section 92CA of the Act. 11. Thus, if, we apply the provisions of section 144C of the Act to the facts of the present appeal, undoubtedly, assessee qualifies as an eligible assessee under sub-section (15)(b)(i) of section 144C of the Act. Further, it is an established fact

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)

transferred to various units including the units eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC of the act based upon the sales ratio of all manufacturing units. 4. During assessment year 2005 – 06 to 2011 – 12 assessment orders were passed under the provisions of Section 153A/143 (3) of the act based upon search and seizure operations carried out under the provisions

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent

LI & FUNG INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order dated 25/11/11 of the ITAT Tribunal, Delhi Branch

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 144C(1) of the Act made an addition, inter alia, on account of transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 57,65,61,186 on the basis of the order passed by the TPO. The reasoning of the TPO is as follows: ITA 306/2012 Page 5 “5.2.5 The compensation model of the assessee does not include the profit attributable

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

8,87,65,617 is INR 9,97,47,889 and therefore proposed an adjustment of INR 1,09,82,272/–. Accordingly he passed the order under section 92CA (3) of the act on 20/1/2014. Incorporating the above adjustment proposed by Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) the learned

NOBLE RESOURCE & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

8,87,65,617 is INR 9,97,47,889 and therefore proposed an adjustment of INR 1,09,82,272/–. Accordingly he passed the order under section 92CA (3) of the act on 20/1/2014. Incorporating the above adjustment proposed by Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) the learned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- 2, NEW DELHI vs. HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on 24.06.2021. The TPO passed the order dated 25.07.2021 under Section 92CA (3) of the Act proposing upward adjustment amounting to ₹7,36,34,508/- in respect of "provision of administrative support services". Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:22:45 Signature Not Verified ITA No.304/2025 Page 3 of 46 Based

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

144C of the Act dated 31 October 2018 is bad in law. 1.3 That the additions/disallowances made by Ld. AO are wholly illegal, untenable and on erroneous grounds. GROUNDS OF APPEALS IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS Transfer of power-Rs. 26,52,98,490/- 2. That the Ld. DRP/TPO/AO have erred in law and facts and in circumstances

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

M/S ATOTECH INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee with respect to the above issue is allowed with above direction

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Atotech India Ltd, Acit, 66, Km Stone, Nh-8, Gurgaon Circle, Vs. Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm0338G (Appellant) (Respondent)

8 of schedule 16 contained reference to the above transaction. According to that it is mentioned that the company has made supplies free of cost with the sales value of Rs. 58923746/– to AT & S a customer in India as a part of memorandum of understanding signed by the company with customer dated 28/10/2003 and under an overall arrangement reached

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

transfer pricing mechanism. Such opportunity cannot be taken away by treating it as purely procedural in nature. 8. Reference by the Revenue to the circulars dated 03.06.2010 and 19.11.2013 in this regard would be of no avail. First of these circulars was an explanatory circular issued by the Finance Ministry in which it was provided that these amendments (which included

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

transfer pricing mechanism. Such opportunity cannot be taken away by treating it as purely procedural in nature. 8. Reference by the Revenue to the circulars dated 03.06.2010 and 19.11.2013 in this regard would be of no avail. First of these circulars was an explanatory circular issued by the Finance Ministry in which it was provided that these amendments (which included

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

transfer pricing mechanism. Such opportunity cannot be taken away by treating it as purely procedural in nature. 8. Reference by the Revenue to the circulars dated 03.06.2010 and 19.11.2013 in this regard would be of no avail. First of these circulars was an explanatory circular issued by the Finance Ministry in which it was provided that these amendments (which included