MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

156. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the writ petition challenging the Transfer Pricing Order had dealt with transfer pricing issues and had enrolled and culled out legal ratios and principles. Directions were issued. At the same time, an order of remand to the TPO to compute the arm's length price on the basis of said principles

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

156 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,19,57,051/- and grant the refund along with the interest. GROUNDS OF APPEAL - TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS – ADJUSTMENTS OF RS.2,50,60,929/- I. Provision of Management Support Services (MSS) – Adjustment of Rs. 34,41,669/- 9.0 That the Ld. DRP and consequently the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO have erred

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

156 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,19,57,051/- and grant the refund along with the interest. GROUNDS OF APPEAL - TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS – ADJUSTMENTS OF RS.2,50,60,929/- I. Provision of Management Support Services (MSS) – Adjustment of Rs. 34,41,669/- 9.0 That the Ld. DRP and consequently the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO have erred

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

156 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,19,57,051/- and grant the refund along with the interest. GROUNDS OF APPEAL - TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS – ADJUSTMENTS OF RS.2,50,60,929/- I. Provision of Management Support Services (MSS) – Adjustment of Rs. 34,41,669/- 9.0 That the Ld. DRP and consequently the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO have erred

GLOBAL LOGIC INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT TPO-2(1)(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appointed date for the proposed Scheme is April 1,2017. LTI acquired AugmentlQ Data Sciences Private Limited (’AugmentlQ), an innovative startup offering IP-based Big Data Analytics Solution that helps enterprises derive business benefits from Big Data in FY17, In addition to acquisitions, the Company is also investing in partnering with

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

156 - 198). In its revenue stream as per page no 166 of Standalone Financial statements its revenue recognition shows that:— "Income from software services Revenue from time and material engagements is recognized on time proportion basis as and when the services are rendered in accordance with the terms of the contracts with customers. In case of fixed price contracts, revenue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

156 - 198). In its revenue stream as per page no 166 of Standalone Financial statements its revenue recognition shows that:— "Income from software services Revenue from time and material engagements is recognized on time proportion basis as and when the services are rendered in accordance with the terms of the contracts with customers. In case of fixed price contracts, revenue

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

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

section 92CA(1). Vide order dated 09.01.2013 the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed an addition of Rs.8,37,93,883 and AO vide his draft assessment order dated 08.03.2013 after considering the above International transaction, proposed to assess the taxpayer at an income of Rs.13,72,42,420. 4. The taxpayer company (GGIPL) is a subsidiary of Globe Ground Deutschland

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

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act was framed, giving effect to the DRP directions dated 30.09.2024. Aggrieved against it the assessee is in appeal before us. 3.8 It is the case of the assessee that the Ld. TPO has grossly erred in not allowing working Capital Adjustment to the PLI for appellant and the comparables

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 144C(10) and 144C(13) of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above, that the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 26th July, 2022 is bad in law and the additions/disallowances made by Ld. AO Ld. DRP's are wholly illegal, untenable and on erroneous grounds. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN RESPECT

TURNER & TOWNSEND PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.38,94,442. B. As regards the disallowance made on account of non-deposition of employee's contribution to PF within the time allowed as per the relevant statute under section 36(1) val of the Act to the tune of Rs. 42,40,062/-. (i) During the year under consideration, the total employee

TAKENAKA INDIA PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-25(1), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Cit (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aadct6143P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Cit(A)”)-44, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Correctness Of The Order On Following Grounds:-

section 92CA of the Act, the issue of transfer pricing adjustment was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) for determining Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”). The TPO vide order dated 27.01.2016 proposed certain adjustments, thereby he proposed T.P. adjustment at INR 1,26,07,833/- u/s 92CA of the Act. Thereafter, the AO passed a draft assessment order dated

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

transfer pricing adjustment made in the sum of Rs 1,20,54,020/- in respect of international transaction towards payment of royalty. 5. Ground No. 3 to 3.3 raised by the assessee is about Disallowanceofdepreciation amounting to Rs. 12,47,17,47,967/- in respect of right to use 3G Spectrum. 5.1 Considered the rival submissions and material placed onrecord

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

156 of the Act and Penalty Notice dated 30th September 2021 (Exhibit 1-3) issued under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act." 11. In support of argument, the Ld. AR also emphasised upon another order of Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.-812/Del/2022, in the case of Fiberhome India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each release in this case was a transfer of the releasor's share for consideration to the release and the transferee, the assessee, "purchased" the share of each of his brothers and the assessee was, therefore, entitled to the relief under section

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

section 115-0 of the Act while distributing dividends to its shareholders based in Finland. As the said claim has been raised for the first time, it is humbly prayed that the said issue may be remanded back to the file of AO for fresh consideration. Thus, in view of the above, it is humbly prayed before

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

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

prices due to some concessions given by the Hero Group to Honda. The aforesaid examination of the facts and circumstances firmly establish that except for AO’s own belief of the manner in which the parties to this share sale transaction ‘may’ have acted upon, to ‘benefit’ the assessee was miserably insufficient to even indicate escapement of income. The same