JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

price of USD 50,000. 5. During the FY 1994-95, Sahara paid USD 199,370 each on 22nd April 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,00,092) and on 14th November 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,12,054) respectively. Admittedly, Sahara did not deduct tax at source. It is stated that Sahara had applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Income

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

price of USD 50,000. 5. During the FY 1994-95, Sahara paid USD 199,370 each on 22nd April 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,00,092) and on 14th November 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,12,054) respectively. Admittedly, Sahara did not deduct tax at source. It is stated that Sahara had applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Income

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

price of USD 50,000. 5. During the FY 1994-95, Sahara paid USD 199,370 each on 22nd April 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,00,092) and on 14th November 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,12,054) respectively. Admittedly, Sahara did not deduct tax at source. It is stated that Sahara had applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Income

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

price of USD 50,000. 5. During the FY 1994-95, Sahara paid USD 199,370 each on 22nd April 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,00,092) and on 14th November 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,12,054) respectively. Admittedly, Sahara did not deduct tax at source. It is stated that Sahara had applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Income

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

price of USD 50,000. 5. During the FY 1994-95, Sahara paid USD 199,370 each on 22nd April 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,00,092) and on 14th November 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,12,054) respectively. Admittedly, Sahara did not deduct tax at source. It is stated that Sahara had applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Income

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

price of USD 50,000. 5. During the FY 1994-95, Sahara paid USD 199,370 each on 22nd April 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,00,092) and on 14th November 1994 (equivalent to Rs. 63,12,054) respectively. Admittedly, Sahara did not deduct tax at source. It is stated that Sahara had applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Income

ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3), Range-1, New C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Dy. Cit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(2), New Delhi C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar Department By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

transfer pricing adjustment to Rs.47,85,26,103/- as worked out by the learned TPO. 5.7 Thus, it is evident that learned TPO/AO has not considered the direction of learned DRP. As per the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is bound to pass the final assessment order in conformity with the direction

ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3), Range-1, New C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Dy. Cit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(2), New Delhi C/O Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd., Sucheta Bhawan, Gate No.2, 1St Floor 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi. Pan :Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ar Department By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

transfer pricing adjustment to Rs.47,85,26,103/- as worked out by the learned TPO. 5.7 Thus, it is evident that learned TPO/AO has not considered the direction of learned DRP. As per the provisions of section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is bound to pass the final assessment order in conformity with the direction

ADOBE SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. JCIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh, Jm & Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 2454/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Adobe Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income (Now Amalgamated With Adobe Tax, Range-1, Systems India Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No. Noida 1-1A, City Centre, Sector-25A, Noida (U.P)-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2982J Assessee By : Sh. Deepak Chopra & Rohan Khare, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Amrendra Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

Transfer Pricing documentation requirements. 11. The learned AO/DRP has erred by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the assessee using turnover less than Rs. 1 Crore as a comparability criterion. 12a. The learned AO/DRP has erred by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the assessee for having different accounting year (i.e. companies having accounting year other than March

DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

transfer pricing proceedings, the Ld. TPO of the opinion that, the AMP Expenditures incurred by the assessee are to promote the brand/trade name which are owned by the AE’s and expenditure has resulted into brand building and increased awareness of products bearing brand/trading. Accordingly, under the comparability adjustment to determined the excess AMP by identifying the excess intensity

DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

transfer pricing proceedings, the Ld. TPO of the opinion that, the AMP Expenditures incurred by the assessee are to promote the brand/trade name which are owned by the AE’s and expenditure has resulted into brand building and increased awareness of products bearing brand/trading. Accordingly, under the comparability adjustment to determined the excess AMP by identifying the excess intensity

DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

transfer pricing proceedings, the Ld. TPO of the opinion that, the AMP Expenditures incurred by the assessee are to promote the brand/trade name which are owned by the AE’s and expenditure has resulted into brand building and increased awareness of products bearing brand/trading. Accordingly, under the comparability adjustment to determined the excess AMP by identifying the excess intensity

ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Stay Application No.73/Del/2021 (Assessment Year : 2016-17)

transfer pricing order. 2. TP adjustment with respect to payment of royalty On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO [in pursuance to the directions of the Ld. DRP] erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 26,78,57,509/- while holding that the international transaction pertaining to payment

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

price, including seeking relevant permissions, would not mean that the gain realized was business income: Deep Chandra and Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

price, including seeking relevant permissions, would not mean that the gain realized was business income: Deep Chandra and Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

price, including seeking relevant permissions, would not mean that the gain realized was business income: Deep Chandra and Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

price, including seeking relevant permissions, would not mean that the gain realized was business income: Deep Chandra and Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5162/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5163/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Airports Authority Of India, Vs Income Tax Officer(Tds), Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Ward-1(1), Airport, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca6412D Assessee By : Sh. Ashish Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

15A) does not apply to agreement entered into on or after 01-04-2007. This means that even said exemption has been withdrawn with reference to agreement entered into after prescribed date. Further, Article 265 of Constitution of India says: ‘No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law’. Thus, constitution gives power to parliament to make