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

Price and no adjustment\nwas proposed on these transactions. With respect to specified\ndomestic transactions, the TPO observed that the deduction\nclaimed under section 80IA of the Act on the profits from power\ngeneration units needs to be reduced and observed that the transfer\nof electricity generated by power generating units to other\nmanufacturing units

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

Price and no adjustment\nwas proposed on these transactions. With respect to specified\ndomestic transactions, the TPO observed that the deduction\nclaimed under section 80IA of the Act on the profits from power\ngeneration units needs to be reduced and observed that the transfer\nof electricity generated by power generating units to other\nmanufacturing units

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

Price and no adjustment\nwas proposed on these transactions. With respect to specified\ndomestic transactions, the TPO observed that the deduction\nclaimed under section 80IA of the Act on the profits from power\ngeneration units needs to be reduced and observed that the transfer\nof electricity generated by power generating units to other\nmanufacturing units

IDEMIA SYSCOM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. CIT(TP), DELHI-2, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

transfer pricing method, subject to the principles in Chapter II.” 20. The assessee is a Contract Manufacturer of SIM Card and Smart Card for IDFEMIA Syscom group and it is not in dispute that the assessee is a manufacturer. In our considered opinion, any difference in nomenclature will not change the picture. 21. Vide notice dated

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

transfer pricing assessment, the Ld. TPO sought information from VMF Softech Limited under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”). The Ld. TPO by referring to the response received from VMF Softech Limited excluded this company from the list of final set of comparable companies on the ground that this company is predominantly engaged in outsourcing

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

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

GATES INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 37 of the Act. The jurisdiction vested under transfer pricing provisions to the TPO is only to find out whether the prices paid by the I.T.A. No.2379/Del/2022 22 services are at Arm’s Length Price or not, as held in Sony Ericson Mobile Communication vs. CIT, 374 ITR 118; CIT vs. EKL Appliances

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 92C. (1) ........................................................ (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction shall be judged with reference to the following, namely:— development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail. (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if- (i) none of the differences

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)

Transfer pricing officer issued 2 Show cause notices - At page 462 of paper book 2A, SCN relating to AMP can be found and at page 338 of paper book 2A, SCN issued in connection with Software services can be seen. Kind attention is invited to page 462 paper book 2A-show cause notice refers to "Benchmarking of REIMBUSEMENT OF MARKETING

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)

Transfer pricing officer issued 2 Show cause notices - At page 462 of paper book 2A, SCN relating to AMP can be found and at page 338 of paper book 2A, SCN issued in connection with Software services can be seen. Kind attention is invited to page 462 paper book 2A-show cause notice refers to "Benchmarking of REIMBUSEMENT OF MARKETING

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making addition

TRIP ADVISOR TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

163/- on account of Transfer Pricing was revised to Rs. 49,45,059/-. On the aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment made, A.O. vide order dated 19.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) imposed penalty of Rs. 16,42,625/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the penalty order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter before

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.

transfer pricing study required to be maintained under Section 92D of the Act. 3.4. That on fact of the case and in law, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in application of inappropriate filters based on different financial year end, export service income and employee cost for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 3.5. That on the facts

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\N\Nita No. 4477/Del/2024\N[Assessment Year: 2020-21]\N\N| Genpact Services Llc,\Nplot 22A & B, Sector 18,\Nudyog Vihar,\Ngurgaon, Haryana-122002\Npan-Aaccg3353P\Nappellant\N|\Nassistant Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-International Tax-1(3)(1),\Nvs Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\N| Appellant By\Nshri Vishal Kalra, Adv.,\Nms. Reema Malik, Adv.& Ms.\Nsnigdha Gautam, Adv.\Nrespondent By\Nshri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N30.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N31.07.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The\Nassessing Officer Dated 29.07.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act') In Pursuance To The\Ndirections Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 25.06.2024 Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2020-21.\N2. The Relevant Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Indian Branch Office Of\Ngenpact Llc, A Usa Company. The Assessee Is A Service Provider\Nrendering Off-Shore Support Services Akin To Bpo Services, Including\Ncollections/Analytics Call Centre Services & Other Back-Office Support\Nservices To Its Aes. The Assessee Is Responsible For Rendering The\Ndesignated Bpo / Collections Services From Its Facility / Infrastructure In\Nindia. As For Assessment Year 2020-21, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of\Nincome (Roi') Declaring An Income Of Inr 20,57,10,540/- On 07.01.2021.\Nduring The Course Of Scrutiny, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S\N92Ca Of The Act To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo') To Determine The\Narm'S Length Price (‘Alp') In Respect Of International Transaction Entered\Ninto By The Assessee.\N2.

Transfer Pricing)-1(3)(1), Mumbai, had\nduring the course of the TP proceedings accepted the reimbursement\nof expenses to be at arm's length, therefore, as per the provisions of\nSec. 92CA(4) of the Act, the A.O was obligated to pass the order and\ncompute the total income of the assessee in conformity with the\narm's length

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

163-192 of the paperbook; ii) Copy of the suit filed by the appellant on 25.03.2013 before the division Civil Judge, Gurgaon against the unlawful action of the Cinepolis group- pages 199-237 of the paperbook; iii) Copy of the order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Gurgaon restraining the Cinepolis group from terminating the agreement (email) dated

BORGWARNER EMISSIONS SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Further, it has been argued that by applying segregative approach i.e. transaction by transaction, ignoring that the transactions are closely linked to each other. 21 Discussion 33. As observed in Sony Ericsson’s case, the core object and purpose for undertaking the exercise of transfer