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

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU vs. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD

160,415 Cost recharge 233,216,947 10. Noticing that the Assessee had incurred “extremely high level” of AMP expenses, a reference was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (‘ACIT’) to the TPO under Section 92CA (1) of the Act for determination of the ALP of the international transactions undertaken by WOIL

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-LTU vs. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD

160,415 Cost recharge 233,216,947 10. Noticing that the Assessee had incurred “extremely high level” of AMP expenses, a reference was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (‘ACIT’) to the TPO under Section 92CA (1) of the Act for determination of the ALP of the international transactions undertaken by WOIL

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I

The appeal is dismissed

Section 92CA of the said Act and submitted that a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer had been made by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the notice for reopening the 2013:DHC:1943-DB ITA No.578/12 Page 8 of 22 assessment and after following the prescribed procedure, the Transfer Pricing Officer had determined the Arm’s Length Price

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

Transfer Pricing Memo and form 3CEB has indicated that the assessee pays LM India for carrying out R& D Services (Engineering and Support Services). The assessee has also entered into an agreement called the Master Service Agreement with LM Wind Power Technologies India Private Limited (merged with LM Wind Power Blades India Private Limited: LM India) for provision of services

DENSO HARYANA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Denso Haryana Pvt. Ltd., Versus Dcit, Circle 10(1), B-1/D-4, Ground Floor, Mohan New Delhi. Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi. Pan:Aaacd6817F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha, Adv. Sh. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2023

section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, different classes of transactions have to be benchmarked separately. After analysing the submissions of the assessee and details furnished, he observed that the assessee has only referred to broad category of services received without identifying the services actually availed during the year. He observed that no contemporaneous documentary evidence was furnished

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIOANAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

price below cost is allowed even though such loss has not been realized actually. At this stage, we need to emphasize once again that the above system of commercial accounting can be superseded or modified by legislative enactment. This is where section comes into play. Under that section, the Central Government is empowered to notify from time to time

TREND MICRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Trend Micro India Private Limited, Vs Acit, 10Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Circle-25(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct2082Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri S.S. Tomar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

transfer pricing was forwarded to TPO and he made certain adjustments by increasing the amount of Rs. 1,49,29,635/- by applying the TNMM Method treating the most appropriate method. While enhancing the valuation, he made comparable analysis of operating profit/operating cost (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator of 10 companies by rejecting 05 comparable companies identified by appellant

HONDA TRADING CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI / ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

transfer pricing, by inappropriately comparing the transactions of commission paid and received by the Appellant with the AE(s). 16.4 The impugned order is bad in law, resulting in economic double taxation, as the transactions pertaining to commission received and paid are already included in the total international transaction value used to calculate the impugned adjustment for the alleged trading

MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed and the adjustment of Rs

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Msd Pharmaceuticals Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, 1544, Level-15, Eros Corporate Adl/Jcit, Tower, Nehru Place, Special Range-6 New Delhi-110019 New Delhi Pan : Aaecm1106C (Appellant) (Respondent)

160/- under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C dated 19.12.2018 was forwarded to the assessee. 2.4 The assessee filed its objections against the Draft Order under section 144C of the Act before the Dispute Resolution. The Dispute Resolution vide MSD Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. 3 order dated 19.09.2019 received by Ld. AO on 30.09.2019, has issued directions under section 144C

ERM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT (JAO- DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI), DELHI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shriyogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5459/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Erm India Private Limited, Assessment Unit, 3Rd Floor, Tower B, Building No.10, Vs. Income Tax Department, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, (Jurisdictional Ao: Deputy Gurugram, Haryana. Commissioner Of Income-Tax), Pan No.Aaace1502C Circle 7(1), Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 270A of the Act.” 1.2 The Ld. AR pointed out that effectively the transfer pricing ground was ground no.2 and for the sake of convenience that may be taken up first and thereafter the ground pertaining to alleged denial of TDS credit (GOA 3) could be taken up for necessary directions to the Assessing Authority. Lastly, grounds

GSR INDUSTRIES,NOIDA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer pricing provisions of Income tax. Once the assessee has complied the TP provisions for the purpose of benchmarking the international transaction and recognized the revenue accordingly, there was no occasion for the Ld AO to rely on the GST return figure without appreciating the different basis of reporting under different law. 8. Because the Ld. AO and subsequently

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

price (ALP) of Rs. 5,25,89,297/- in respect of provision of marketing support services by the assessee referred to its associated enterprises (AE). A draft assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act was passed by the ld AO on 28.09.2021 determining the total income of the assessee

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144C(13)/143(3A)/143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of the appeal before the Tribunal:- “1. Orders passed by Transfer Pricing Officer

PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

transfer pricing adjustment simply on the ground that assessee has spent advertisement, marketing expenditure which is benefitting the brand/trademark of the AE would not be correct approach. Thus, this line of reasoning given by the TPO is rejected. 18 ITA Nos.889 & 890/Del./2021 ITA No.454/Del./2022 57. Thus, on the facts of the present case, it cannot be held that